AA13CR05

AS (2013) CR 05

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fifth sitting

Wednesday 29 January 2014 at 10.00 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.       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 report.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* - The sitting is open.

1. Appointment of committees

      THE PRESIDENT* - The next item of business is further changes to committee membership set out in Document Commissions (2014) 01 Addendum 5.

      Are these proposals approved?

      The proposed candidatures are approved.

2. “Internet and Politics: the Impact of New Information and Communication Technology on Democracy”

      THE PRESIDENT* - The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report entitled “Internet and Politics: the Impact of New Information and Communication Technology on Democracy” (Document 13386). The rapporteur is Ms Anne Brasseur, who has now taken on other duties in the Parliamentary Assembly. She is therefore unable to present the report herself! The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has asked Ms Ana Guţu, its chair, to present the report to the Assembly, with an opinion presented by Mr Hans Franken on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy (Document 13399). I thank you, Ms Guţu, and give you the floor.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – I cannot fail to congratulate you on your election, Madam President.

      The Internet has inevitably changed the habits of the political world. The sharing of ideas, information and knowledge is taking place online. We cannot ignore what is happening on the Internet – the tensions and confrontations as well as the debates, ideas and collective knowledge – just as we cannot ignore what happens in the streets around our parliaments. Communications experts keep telling us that if we are not on the Internet, we are absent from the political arena, and that is no doubt true. Many of us have blogs, create Facebook pages and tweet, and our parties and institutions have their own web pages.

      However, what is politically at stake with the Internet goes well beyond the issue of communication and dialogue among citizens and the dynamic forces of civil society on the one hand, and politicians and democratic institutions on the other. The new media have broken the monopoly of the traditional gatekeepers who controlled what news should be distributed and when. Social networks have broken down the frontier between what used to be called the public and private spheres, and Jürgen Habermas has added a third space – the social sphere. The Internet has become the global agora of the 21st century. With the Internet, people have increased their ability to organise themselves in movements and they have changed the perception of their role in modern society. They expect to be heard more and claim more space in the decision-making process. The Internet is the land where a new desire for democratic participation is born, grows and matures, and it offers new ways to achieve this desire. In fact the Internet is democratising democracy.

      We should welcome this wind of freedom and democracy blowing across the web, but the Internet is not a world without problems and there is a flip-side to the coin, a dark side of the Internet that cannot be ignored. The same tools that enhance our freedoms become dangerous when their use is abused. On the Internet the truth is mixed with false information and manipulation, free thought co-exists with indoctrination, and openness to diversity goes hand in hand with the expression of intolerance and hatred. Collaborative projects and online services grow alongside piracy and new forms of computer terrorism. The hope of the oppressed to be heard may be subject to censorship and repression. Although all knowledge seems to be within reach in a few clicks, stories in the news remind us that anything can be known about us and the Internet makes it possible to control our private lives. The question is how we can reconcile the protection of privacy with the growing need for many users to practise what Ms Brasseur termed “digital exhibitionism”, a phrase I like a lot.

      We must preserve the open nature of the Internet and its neutrality, but we must also ensure the web does not become an area of insecurity and lawlessness – a sprawling machine running independently of any democratic control. We need to ensure respect for human rights and the rule of law on the web as on the street. We cannot accept any compromise in this respect.

      Let us return to the statement that the Internet is an essential tool for democracy. While we agree with that, we must be consistent and take the necessary measures in order to change the functioning of our democratic institutions and to ensure that the Internet is really a way to strengthen dialogue between citizens and the active participation of all in democratic life. The report offers ideas to achieve this, and they are set out in the draft resolution and recommendations. I have time to focus on only a few of them, however.

      The Internet is not the death warrant of representative democracy. There are those who advocate a radical change to the democratic paradigm, but the Internet does not produce that. The principle of democratic representation remains the pillar of democracy. The conclusions of the recent World Forum for Democracy held here in the Council of Europe Chamber confirmed that. It is wrong to believe that a democratic system based on direct democracy mechanisms organised on the web will be a panacea to solve all problems. Even if we can guarantee the uniqueness, authenticity and anonymity of each vote, the systematic use of this “liquid democracy” would lead to anarchy in decision making or the inability to design coherent and consistent policies, or putting power in the hands of an anonymous elite that will not be accountable to citizens. We serve citizens and we must be accountable to them throughout our terms of office and not just once every four or five years in elections. The Internet provides us with the means to enhance the transparency of decision making and dialogue with citizens. We must sometimes make difficult and unpopular decisions as we are obliged to take into account the long-term interests of our countries.

      I want to emphasise five concrete proposals from among those contained in the texts before you. First, the erosion of citizens’ trust in democratic institutions is not inevitable. We must seize the opportunity to reconnect, through the Internet, our institutions and citizens who have moved away from us. The Internet and social media open up new avenues for active participation in democratic life, but perhaps we are not sufficiently prepared. We must therefore develop, especially within our Parliaments, the capabilities and skills required for this purpose.

      Secondly, since the Internet is essential to democratic life, access to the Internet should not become a new source of discrimination. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has adopted a report on the right of access to the Internet. The report I have the honour to present to you today in the name of Ms Brasseur stresses the need to combat social and cultural inequalities that fuel the digital divide.

      Thirdly, we must ensure effective protection of freedom of information on the Internet, but that means we must also act to prevent the risk of distortion of information and manipulation of public opinion. To safeguard the Internet as a space of freedom, our Governments must work collaboratively and adopt common rules, and the large Internet companies also have responsibilities to fulfil in this regard. We need to promote self-regulation, but it is certainly not sufficient. That is why it is proposed that we consider the following possibilities: the establishment of an independent institution to monitor the algorithms of search engines that filter and condition the access to information and knowledge on the web; the development of principles and general standards to control new practices of semantic research; and the development of regulations to prevent abuses in private or family life, including trolling.

      Fourthly, we must ensure that monitoring mechanisms do not jeopardise fundamental freedoms, plunging us into an Orwellian world. Finally, we must not only ensure compliance in our own countries to maintaining human rights on the web and Internet freedom, but also act within various international institutions to preserve these rights and freedom across the world, particularly where democracy is in danger or does not even exist.

      Finally, our thinking must have a European dimension. Thus, it is proposed that the Committee of Ministers initiate a Council of Europe White Paper on democracy, politics and the Internet.

      Thank you and I hope you support these proposals.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Before I give the floor to Mr Franken, Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to present the committee’s opinion, may I remind you that we will have a three-minute limit on the time allotted to speakers? Ms Guţu, you have three and a half minutes for your response to the debate.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands.) – Madam President, you produced an interesting report, especially about the impact of social media and new information technologies on democracy. This is important because something new has happened here, with the end of the concentration of power in respect of information and an altered relationship between representative democracy and tyrant democracy. There are some positive aspects to these developments, but also some dangers.

      One of the positive points is that there is now a possibility for a better relationship between politicians and civilians, with enhanced dialogue. If politicians listened more, there could be more active citizenship and conversational politics.

      There are also dangers, however. First, politicians in a representative democracy need to have discussions with their colleagues in order to have coherence and co-ordination.

      Secondly, a single voice can create false expectations, because it might not be supported by the majority. Politicians are elected. They are responsible to and have ties with all their voters, not just the person who broadcasts a single message and receives an answer from a politician.

      Another danger is the possibility of manipulating public opinion.

      I agree with the report’s analysis and conclusions. The developments are interesting, but for the moment, they do not constitute an alternative to representative democracy. However, social media are already an essential part of representative democracy, so I agree with the report’s proposals and recommendations.

      I tabled a few amendments to clarify issues and to make the text more precise. The rapporteur has agreed to them, and they have already been accepted by the Committees on Political Affairs and Democracy and on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      Finally, I would like to thank members of the Secretariat for their indispensable support, as usual.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Franken.

      In the debate I call first Mr Račan, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr RAČAN (Croatia) – The Socialist Group supports the report, which we feel provides a well-balanced overview of the use of information communication technology in politics. The Internet extends the means and instruments of democracy, which is permanently on the agenda of the Council of Europe.

      While the Internet extends the public space for the democratic process, it also poses questions that need to be answered and problems for which solutions need to be found. Misuse of the Internet can endanger democracy in several ways. If left unregulated, the Internet allows the spreading of intolerance, hate and violence. It is an avenue for organised crime and international terrorism, and it can also facilitate dictatorship.

      For a while the Internet had been developing on its own, outside politics, with politics almost completely uninterested in it. Politics has now caught on to the power of the Internet, and the time for regulation is now. However, regulation must be mild and focused on identified misuses, with the goal of keeping the Internet open and neutral.

      To reach such an integrative solution, the report proposes that the Council of Europe begins work on a White Paper called, “Democracy, politics and the Internet”. The Socialist Group supports the report and the beginning of the work on the White Paper.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – The European People’s Party supports the report. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the report, which addresses and answers some complicated questions while setting a framework for discussion and research on the topic.

      The role of the Internet in the modern world cannot be underestimated. It has become the leading space for discussion of each and every question; for sharing and receiving information; and for organising the participation of society in the discussions of important issues.

      As mentioned in the report, the Internet contributes to the exercise of rights such as the freedoms of assembly, of speech, and of information. In the political sphere, the Internet has allowed politicians and voters to become directly linked. It has also become a new and free sphere for political campaigning, allowing contact to be made with people and one’s word to be heard.

      Every powerful tool, including the Internet, can, however, become a dangerous weapon if it falls into the wrong hands. The main problem that overshadows the advantages of the freedom provided by the Internet is the lack of accountability and responsibility.

      The lack of accountability on the Internet poses a danger to national security, as noted in the report, and to the individual. Establishing responsibility on the Internet is undoubtedly a difficult process that involves a great amount of work, which needs to be done by representatives from different sectors, covering the technical and legal aspects of the issue. The establishment of research teams, with representatives from all interested groups and professionals, and setting the framework and principles to launch preparatory work for a Council of Europe White Paper, “Democracy, politics and the Internet”, will create a firm basis for the Council of Europe and its member States to start an active campaign to eliminate the dangers in the virtual sphere, for the sake of protecting political integrity and human dignity both in real life and on the Internet.

      One of the problems in the modern world is the proliferation of information from anonymous sources on the Internet. The main issue is that it is nearly impossible to identify the source or author of a comment or any other information, or to seek redress and find a legal solution to any problems. The authors of anonymous information, and the people who share such information, are usually found on social networking sites, registered under fake names and using fake profiles to leave and share humiliating comments that offend human dignity. Leaving humiliating comments and using fake profiles have become new trends in some countries in the Council of Europe. Such behaviour, which offends in real life, falls outside applicable laws on the Internet. That means that the Internet provides opportunities for people to go against the core principles of the modern world and rights enshrined in international conventions that member States have signed up to, such as respect for human dignity.

      The situation is worsened when mass media spread such information without bearing responsibility. It is difficult to find the right solution to the issue, as accountability and responsibility should not be seen or used as a tool for censorship, but as a way of creating a virtual sphere in which human dignity can be protected. That might be the reason for the increasing number of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights that find media outlets liable for humiliating comments and misleading information left by anonymous users with the help or use of media outlets’ websites.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I remind members that they have three minutes to speak. Otherwise, we will not be able to hear from all the speakers who have signed up, which would be a great shame.

      I now call Mr Shlegel, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – On behalf of the European Democrat Group and myself, I would like to thank Ms Brasseur for the report, which is clear, relevant, far reaching and detailed. I think we can say that we are all acquainted with the subject matter; I thought that before she became our President. While working on the report, she took into account the many different views that exist, which allowed her to provide the right balance to the report.

      I shall say a few words about some of the specific issues. The Internet is having a decisive influence on the development of freedom of expression and democracy. However, it can also be used as a tool for dictatorship. Obviously, human rights must be defended online in exactly the same way as they are offline, but unfortunately self-regulation does not always work. International law in the field has to be further developed. I support the idea of a White Paper called, “Democracy, politics and the Internet”. However, after that, we must keep moving on.

      The problems relate not only to basic principles, but to the territory covered by the Council of Europe. If we are to take a single approach to the legal basis of the Internet, and if we do not want the Internet to have become fragmented in five or seven years’ time, we have to act now. The Assembly must support the draft resolution.

      There are some things, however, with which I cannot agree. For instance, the role of electronic democracy – or direct democracy – is not defined clearly enough. Direct democracy can never replace representative democracy, because not everybody – I stress this – has access to the Internet. We also need to retain representative democracy as a means of fighting against the negative elements of society that are promoted on the Internet.

      As authority representatives, we have a monopoly on decision making. We are trusted by our voters and we act on that trust. Electronic democracy gives them the opportunity to participate directly. Is not that what we want? The Assembly should support the development of direct democracy for that reason.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Shlegel. I call Mr Leyden, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr LEYDEN (Ireland) – First, I wish sincerely to congratulate you, Madam President, on your election as President of this Assembly. You are the second woman in the more-than-65-year history of the Council of Europe to assume this most important role. As a former leader of ALDE, and as a vice president of the group, I was very pleased with Monday’s election result. The generosity of spirit in your acceptance speech was very encouraging and reflected a great degree of unity within this Organisation. You have contributed to that through your approach to the election and your election as President. The last lady President was Ms Leni Fischer in the last century. I wish you well and every success and health. I think you are going to give leadership to women throughout Europe and the world as President of this Assembly.

      I congratulate you, Madam President, on your excellent report, which we in ALDE support 100% . It focuses on the wonderful experience of the Internet and on not only its immediacy, but its dangers. Truly, it is the global village foreseen by George Orwell. This Assembly is being filmed and recorded and our proceedings are being watched – the word is being spread – in every corner of the world. That is enormously exciting.

      As the report notes, however, there are risks. The Internet has to be carefully managed and we need to ensure that those Internet postings that are damaging and destructive are carefully monitored. When any politician or individual is maligned on the Internet, the response should be immediate. They should have immediate recourse to having such damaging statements removed.

      This is a step in the right direction. We commend the report to the Assembly and hope it will be unanimously accepted. I wish you every success, Madam President, and I look forward to you visiting Ireland in the near future as President of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Leyden. I call Mr Valen, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr VALEN (Norway) – Thank you, Madam President, for a good and thorough report. Done right, access to new information technology brings about revolutionary changes, democracy and transparency. Two days ago, Tunisia adopted its new and democratic constitution. Social media and the Internet played a crucial part in the Arab Spring and made us all feel closer to what happened.

      New technology, however, can also be less liberating. Mass surveillance of ordinary people’s communications and targeted surveillance of allied leaders is now possible on a scale we could not have imagined two or three decades ago. When democratic countries make widespread use of such surveillance, with no regard for people’s right to free expression or the basic principles of the rule of law, they undermine their own legitimacy and their ability to criticise and change the oppressive politics and mass surveillance – not to mention the censorship – practised by authoritarian regimes.

      Edward Snowden has revealed the nature and technological prowess of modern surveillance. We have been stunned by the sophistication and depth of the surveillance to which all world citizens can be subject, and it has stirred debate all over the world. He has shared critical information about how modern surveillance of States and citizens is carried out and how intelligence is gathered.

      There is no doubt that Snowden’s actions may have damaged the security interests of several nations in the short term. I do not necessarily condone or support all of his disclosures. I am, however, convinced that the public debate and policy changes in the wake of his whistleblowing have contributed to a more peaceful and stable world order. His actions have, in effect, led to the reintroduction of trust and transparency as a leading principle in global security policies, the value of which cannot be overestimated.

      A country’s legitimate need for reliable intelligence to preserve its own security must always be balanced against the people’s individual freedoms – and the global need for trust – as an integral condition for stability and peace. I think that Edward Snowden has made a critical contribution to restoring that balance, which is why I and my colleague Bård Vegar Solhjell of the Norwegian Parliament have today nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

      A peaceful world order depends on trust between nations and between people. Peace-brokering would be impossible without a basic level of trust, as would international agreements and disarmament. We need to ensure the democratic and transparent application of new information technologies in order to be able to trust each other.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – The Internet has changed our lives. It is quite hard to remember how things were for our citizens before the Internet was around. Things were a lot less predictable and instantaneous; the Internet has had an irreversible effect on the public sphere and on citizens’ lives.

The Internet throws up challenges for participatory democracy, particularly with regard to crises of trust and confidence in our institutions. However, that is a welcome challenge, because it forces us as parliamentarians and, more broadly speaking, political decision makers to explain our policy choices and decisions and to argue about and defend them. The Internet is opening up the right to be informed and the right to question. Of course, some immediate responses can be blunt, but the Internet is giving the public more of a say.

      My election to the National Assembly had a lot to do with the Internet. When I was elected, more than 70% of votes were cast on an online secure voting system. That type of voting has enabled a large number of French people who live a long way away from their local polling station to vote, and 11 members of the French Parliament were elected in that way. This is the result of an election campaign that implemented several different tools. Social networks were used and online seminars brought together hundreds of web users. In my day-to-day activities as a parliamentarian, I certainly try to highlight such collective mobilisation and the use of Internet voting.

I believe in the new citizen represented by the Internet, so there needs to be complete freedom on the Internet. We do not want that to result in a drop in democratic values and human rights. The Internet contains both good and bad things; it has generosity and racism, peace and violence. Developments that we have witnessed show that privacy can be subject to scrutiny and that the most private data can be exploited, so I endorse the rapporteur’s proposal to create common rules for all member States of the Council of Europe on security and governance on the Internet. I would like Internet operators to be closely associated with the work on defining those rules. As the rapporteur rightly says, a White Paper should be put forward by the Council of Europe with a view to creating rules and proper results.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – This excellent report makes a lot of good and timely proposals. It is important that we have a good sense of the paradoxical nature of the contributions that the Internet has made. This is a question of power; the Internet has multiplied our capacities and the possibilities we have. The communication tools are extraordinary, but new technologies always have a positive side and a negative one. That is true of nuclear power, genetically modified organisms and so on. The Internet can make an extraordinary contribution to democracy; it has been a counter-power to some dictatorships and has made it possible for citizens to occupy a role that was not possible for them in the past. However, the power that was traditionally held by others is now being taken back, in dictatorships, through surveillance in democracies and through manipulation.

As with the other technologies I mentioned and with nanotechnologies, things should not be renounced but they need to be carefully controlled. The dangerous side of the Internet is dampening our initial enthusiasm for the positive impact for democracy that it can have. It would be dangerous to introduce electronic voting in a field that can be manipulated and cannot be verified by all citizens, because they do not always have the necessary information or technological expertise. I congratulate those who are developing these ideas because they would like to ensure access to the Internet for all in order to avoid having a digital divide, but we must be careful, as the report rightly makes clear.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER* (Switzerland) – I support this report and am grateful to the rapporteurs. Politics has always had to play catch-up with new technologies, as is plain for all to see in the case of the Internet. Problems relating to new developments are recognised only belatedly, and politics is always on the back foot. That state of affairs has to change; governments have to pay closer attention to technologies in order to keep up with them. That is because ordinary citizens are feeling more and more unsettled by the break-neck speed of the development of the Internet and mobile technologies. We are disturbed by a number of factors, which we do not always keep separate; there is interplay between them.

      Is it the State that bothers us? Are we concerned by the fact that States have their statistics, surveys and databases, as well as cameras in public spaces that register our every move? Of course, a modern State needs statistics and censuses. We also need CCTV in order to prevent crime and misdemeanours, and to solve crimes more quickly. We are disturbed by the fact that we are now, in essence, an open book. In many areas political parties are all for transparency and open communications. My party in Switzerland, the CVP, long ago embraced the Web 2.0, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and all other kinds of technologies that we use daily, because we think that that is an uncomplicated way of people gaining access to politics. I wish to see the extension of e-voting, as that would allow Swiss people living abroad to have access to direct democracy. Companies, however, are also profiling us, and that is unsettling. Many of us have discount, bonus and points cards in our wallets without being aware of the consequences. We want to know what companies our doing when they use cards to gauge our consumption patterns.

      It may, however, be private individuals who are so disturbing to us, because all kinds of criminal activity takes place on the Internet, particularly paedophile activity and incitement to violence; cyber-bullying and cyber-grooming are also becoming increasing problems. That is why we must look at European legislation. We are calling on our States, as well as the international community, to protect individual citizens by carrying out monitoring at State level. As you can see, an awful lot remains to be done in the field of new technology, so let us make a start on tackling this issue with this report.

      Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation)* – We support this report, and we are grateful to you for the fact that, although there may be a certain amount of Russophobia in here, the report is a good and interesting one overall. What is the Internet? Let me demonstrate what I am talking about by giving one clear example. When I met Mr Browder yesterday, I photographed him and posted the photo on Twitter, saying, “Here’s someone who was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in Russia. What would you like to say to him?” Some of the people who answered said, “Please thank him for upholding the proper values and showing Russia what it ought to be doing. Others said, “Put him in the boot of a car and bring him back to Russia. We’ll deal with him.” A single page on the Internet allowed all those different views; this provides us with democracy, and having democracy is the only way in which Russia has the possibility of defending human rights.

      Mr Snowden revealed to us how we are all being listened to all the time, but we should not forget cybercrime, the fact that terrorist attacks are carried out through or with the help of the Internet, and that the Internet is home to calls for coups and for social unrest. When the terrorists acts that took place in Volgograd around Christmastime happened, we discovered that people had been invited to participate through various forums on the Internet. So there is an obvious need for a clear set of rules that apply to everybody.

      Another thing that is obvious is that we must put behind us the age of anonymity on the Internet – I refer to anonymity in forums and on blogs. I do not mean that we need to interfere in people’s privacy, but we must remain aware that there are two sides to the anonymity coin and that anonymity is often used in preparing acts of terrorism. That is why Russia will gradually be moving away from the possibility of full anonymity in the blogosphere and in forums.

      I thank the rapporteur for this excellent report. Like the previous speaker, I also think that Snowden should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for tearing the mask off all the negative things that are happening through the Internet.

      Mr COMTE (Switzerland)* – The Internet is an extraordinary democratic tool that enables debates and the sharing of information. Citizens are able to access all the information necessary for them to vote in the full knowledge of all the facts. The Internet is of course not immune to problems, but we need to make it clear that online violations are not the Internet’s fault and that people are behind them. We need to ensure that all opinions can be expressed on the Internet, including rebukes against parliamentarians and governments. It is perfectly normal to be subject to criticism. We must ensure that if a citizen wants to criticise an authority, they should be able to do so without fear of the consequences. Slander, however, should not be protected. People can of course criticise a government’s actions, but that does not mean that the integrity or honesty of elected MPs should be questioned. They are entitled to privacy and protection as well. We need to make a distinction between politics and privacy.

      The Internet can be a vector for terrorism, which remains a crime that must be combated. Laws must apply on the Internet, just as they do for newspapers and magazines, but there is no need for specific rules, however. We should simply apply the rules that are used for all other sectors. The Internet should not be a lawless area.

      The report refers to direct democracy, which we should be trying to strengthen. Virtual democracy means that tens of thousands of people are able to express their views on the Internet, but that does not necessarily mean that that is the view of the majority. The same applies when large numbers of people take to the streets. We must be aware that the majority is sometimes silent and does not necessarily take to the streets or express its views. I am playing my part to ensure that direct democracy is developed and that people can express their opinions. I have been involved in it for quite some time and it is the best way of re-establishing trust between the population and the authorities.

      Ms FABER-VAN DE KLASHORST (Netherlands) – The art of printing made a great impact on science, as a result of which mankind took a great step forward. In those days, rulers wanted to protect people from dangerous writing and ideas. They feared the undermining of religious or political authority, and censorship was imposed under the cloak of moral considerations. Affordable communication characterises the Internet. Data are transmitted super-fast around the globe. An unlimited source of information has become available to all people, and we can exchange thoughts via the world wide web without limitation. The Internet is becoming more powerful than printing, and people are well aware of its power.

      People are also conscious of being deceived by the elite, who may misrepresent the facts. What many politicians say in their own country is different from what they say in Brussels. People are starting to object. They can exchange experiences with people of the same mind via the Internet. They realise that they do not want the things that are being imposed on them, such as the loss of sovereignty to non-elected European administrators and the Islamisation of Europe. Both imply loss of freedom. New digital communication makes the establishment tremble, but it is precisely that instrument that creates opportunities for democracy. It is via the Internet that politicians can quickly get in touch with citizens. Yet the establishment sees that as an undermining of their own position. Instead of self-reflection, they turn to censorship. Through smooth talking, they call for Internet use to be placed within a legal framework. They try to instil fear in the public by saying that the Internet can be used for dubious purposes, such as criminal activities and international terrorism. If the Internet is being used for criminal activities, the people who carry out such activities should be punished. We should not punish the Internet, which is merely an instrument. Undesirable activities can be investigated through adequate monitoring.

      The alleged undermining of democracy is a fallacy. How can democracy be undermined by freedom of expression? Censorship is imposed by totalitarian regimes. Is the EU becoming one? Only people who live in freedom can fully blossom and make a contribution to a high level of prosperity for all. The Netherlands has known two periods of national censorship: the annexation by the First French Empire and the Second World War. During both periods, the Netherlands was occupied and oppressed by foreign dictators. We should never allow ourselves to be silenced again, and we should never accept being oppressed by a dictator again – certainly not one from Brussels.

      Ms VUČKEVIĆ (Serbia)* – I congratulate the President on her election and thank the rapporteur for this excellent and important report.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      The report emphasises the extent to which the Internet has changed the communication paradigm and the notion of public debate. It reiterates the Internet’s role in politics and how much it influences our jobs and decision-making processes. It also discusses the dangers that exist in this linking of the Internet with politics. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we must talk about the challenges and seek solutions to any problems.

      The first challenge is around the interdependence of representative and participatory democracy. Representative democracy should be preserved, but we have to work on strengthening citizen participation. We politicians may do a great job in encouraging citizens to participate more, but we are also obliged to frame our decisions and our actions according to the major concerns of those whom we represent. In my experience of communicating online, citizens are often much better at getting together on the Internet when they want to express negative opinions. It is much more difficult to get people to act together in a positive way for campaigns that aim to change something.

      The second challenge is that governments may want to replace regulated and regular procedures and the usual democratic mechanisms with informal online communication when convenient, such as for online campaigns and debates. Such a case recently occurred in Serbia when the government wanted to amend labour laws, which the trade unions were very much against. The unions refused to participate in some public debates that were organised by the government outside of the social and tripartite dialogue mechanism. The government then decided not to hold public debates and said that anyone who was interested could send online comments to the relevant ministry. There would have been no public debate with the relevant, competent people representing specific interests. Fortunately, all that was interrupted by calling of early elections, but it shows how governments can use the Internet for manipulation when convenient.

      The third challenge is the digital divide. We must remember that many people in less-developed countries are deprived of participating online, exchanging experiences and connecting with others nationally, regionally and globally.

      Mr MIHALOVICS (Hungary)* – The quantum shift, thanks to which the Internet has changed the relationship between politics and citizens, has also changed the balance between representative and direct democracy. The Internet allows groups of people to create communities online based on their political convictions. Hungary shares the view that politics has not yet shown itself to be capable of effectively exploiting the exciting opportunities offered by the Internet. Our institutions of State should make a big effort to use the Internet more effectively, to make it a tool for improving the transparency of government activities and creating dialogue with society.

      In this world of rapid globalisation, the Internet is one of the most important ways in which we exchange information. It is our job therefore to ensure that we provide access to even the poorest in our society. To do that, Hungary has expressed a clear political will to provide unlimited broadband access to the whole population before 2018. There are, however, risks to human rights in terms of the protection of personal data and risks to the rule of law and democracy. We share the view of our rapporteur, Ms Brasseur, that the best way to avoid Internet abuse is through education to inform users of the dangers. I draw Members’ attention to a programme called “The Internet Never Forgets”, which has been launched by the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice to make people aware of the dangers of using the net and to deal with the bullying of children in schools and on the Internet.

      Monitoring the use of data is one of the complex issues that face us with the Internet. It is the State’s business to make provisions to protect data, and it is sad that data are now becoming tradeable goods. Hungary regards the protection of data as being of primary importance and supports all international initiatives in the field.

      Mr KOSZORÚS (Hungary)* – I thank Ms Brasseur for her excellent report. The Internet has completely changed the face of the world. It harbours the potential for people to form opinions and for users to decide on political platforms. It also offers a real opportunity to shape the interface between politics and the populace, but we have to shape the Internet in such a way as to reconnect citizens with their democratic institutions. We should not forget that many people do not have access to the Internet, and that is why all Governments must endeavour to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to use the Internet. We are working to ensure that everybody in Hungary has an Internet connection by 2018, because the Internet will shape our future.

      The Internet also brings risks and dangers. There are individuals out there who seek to deliberately harm us. If we do not properly protect our personal data, there are attacks on our private sphere, and Ms Brasseur precisely described that situation. Users need to be better informed. We have a programme in Hungary that goes from nursery to university, to ensure that young people know what is at stake with the Internet. We also have some stringent laws in Europe to protect Internet users from criminal activity.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate you, President, on your new position and on this interesting and instructive report.

      The report addresses a very important issue, because the Internet plays a great role in society and globally. The Internet is one of the most important and most popular forms of mass media. It is well known that freedom of speech, freedom of information and pluralism of opinion are all fundamental to the democratic development of modern societies, because they help society to gain objective truth and establish full democratic governance. All States that acknowledge the importance of that create favourable conditions for mass media, which is the key data medium.

      Some Governments are anxious about their future and perceive the development of democratic values to be a threat to their existence, so they are not keen on citizens freely accessing information. They impede and limit the independent activity of mass media. As the rapporteur said in the report, “The Internet belongs to everyone; therefore, it belongs to no one and has no borders.” We must preserve its openness and neutrality. However, the Internet must not be allowed to become a gigantic prying mechanism, operating beyond all democratic control.

      The Internet and social media are opening new doors that increase dialogue between citizens and elected representatives and stimulate more dynamic participation in democratic life. We must seize this opportunity to reconnect democratic institutions, via the Internet, with the citizens who have moved away from them and to develop, particularly in our Parliaments, the capacities and competencies required to exploit the positive potential of the Internet.

      Internet resources have rapidly developed in Azerbaijan in the past decade. There are neither obstacles nor restrictions on Internet access and usage. I agree with the rapporteur that the Council of Europe should use the Internet and social media to consult civil society on how to renew our representative democracy systems. We could also propose a number of initial benchmarks to prevent the analysis becoming overly fragmented. In conclusion, I again thank the rapporteur for this very useful report.

      Ms BULAJIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate the President on her election and on this excellent report. She has selflessly investigated how the impact of new information and communication technology on democracy should be re-addressed and how the current approach to the Internet should be altered, because the existing practices are manifestly inadequate. To that end, I strongly support the report’s recommendations, most notably the proposal that the Council of Europe begins its work on a White Paper on “Democracy, politics and the Internet” immediately.

      Equitable access to information and freedom of expression are essential aspects of a true democratic society, and keep all citizens informed and enlightened. A natural extension of that ideal is the human need and desire to communicate and exchange information with others. With the advent of the Internet, information is available in a plethora of digital formats and can be exchanged across time zones, countries and groups in seconds. That makes communicating and connecting easier and more efficient. It is therefore both timely and necessary that our distinguished forum discusses the role of the Internet in shaping democratic values. The Internet’s contribution to democracy has not fully matured and its potential to revitalise democracy and offset the potential for oppression needs to be further developed. The Internet can be a powerful tool in the evolution of democratic society, particularly in the accessibility of information, but we should never dismiss its potential to undermine the fundamental concepts of democratic society.

      What constitutes a truly democratic society is a rather personal view and I am inclined to argue for democracy in terms of liberal representative democracy. That suggests several aspects, including the rule of law, an independent judiciary, accountability and a respect for rights and freedoms. The concept of representative democracy relies on informed citizens making informed decisions to determine who they elect to make decisions on their behalf. The Internet’s role in that is to provide access to information that allows citizens to make informed decisions.

      Through advances in technology whereby information can be transmitted quickly, the notion of global democracy has been envisioned. The Internet reduces many barriers to global democracy. It can certainly increase communication capability, facilitate voting and possibly aid in promoting interest in democracy, but it is not able to change or impart a “democratic culture”. This feature of society is essential for a democracy, as people need to have faith that the “system” works. Although the Internet can act as an independent stimulant for political engagement, it is unlikely to instil a deliberative democratic culture among users by itself. We should therefore limit the possibilities for such infringements and ensure that the Internet is used carefully.

      Like our esteemed rapporteur, I, too, believe that the Internet has reinforced the democracy paradigm. Unfortunately, there are “undesirable” groups in cyberspace. Just as the Internet has the potential to rally or unite people with common interests to participate in the democratic process, it can also be used to unite people with questionable morals.        The Internet, let us not forget, is simply a technology that is neither good nor bad; it depends on how it is used.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I, too, would like to congratulate you on your election, Madam President. You are the right woman at the right time, and that is certainly my view and that of my group.

      The report was inspired by the World Forum for Democracy, in which we both took part. We need to get to grips with the question of exactly what politics will look like in 2030. What kind of lifestyles will we have? How will things have changed? The Internet has changed things hugely over the last 20 years and has upped the pace of technological developments prior to that time. That is why we are sure that the Internet will play an ever greater role in people’s communication habits. It is said that more than 70% of people will be living in cities by 2030, and that is why it is fitting that we start to think about the role the Internet is likely to play in politics in the future. We need to talk about participation, about the empowerment of ordinary people and their use of the Internet as a communication forum. It is something we will not be able to hold back; rather, it will be embraced positively by people wishing to protest.

      I say to all of you, look to Finland. We really can learn lessons from the people there. They use crowd-sourcing: they invite their citizens to table certain Bills over the course of a year and to develop legislation. We must take note of that, because we know that, in future, minorities are likely to shape politics more than they do today. We, as responsible politicians, have to try to strike the right balance.

For example, when six States in the European Union were against the drinking water directive, it did not really matter to the Commission. However, when millions of European Union citizens signed a petition against it, that directive suddenly disappeared from the agenda. In future, this kind of direct democracy will have an ever-greater impact on politics.

We must look to the future – at the looming digital divide between the young and old, between town and country – and ensure that everybody has equal access to the Internet. The same holds true for retirement homes; for example the `68 generation is now knocking at the door of the retirement home, so we must ensure that there is free Wifi access there. We must also make sure that the gap between those who are familiar with new technologies and those who are less so does not widen.

      Again, I offer my thanks for an excellent report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Belyakov is not here, so I call Mr Bojanić.

      Mr BOJANIĆ (Montenegro) – I congratulate you on your new position, Madam President, and on preparing an excellent report.

      The initial euphoria, when the Internet was expected to prove a crucial solution in the development of democracy, has come to an end. It was concluded that the Internet, almost uniquely, could help in the development of democracy, but not in its creation. We should ask ourselves what we, as individuals, can contribute to the development of democracy. The Internet can be a tool in this process, but not the only means by which to do the job. Democracy is not strictly dependent on the development of machinery or electronics.

      I come from Montenegro, a country whose citizens are struggling to establish a higher level of democracy. Some 50% of Montenegrin citizens have access to the Internet. That information speaks for itself: half the Montenegrin population is not able to receive information via, or to express their opinions on, the Internet. The other half is under the daily influence of the Internet. Despite the positive aspects of the Internet – such as speed of accessing and sharing information – there are downsides.

      The first downside is the question of the truthfulness of the information. Given the increasing amount of information for which there are no credible sources or evidence, we become increasingly suspicious of such information. It is a well-known “secret” that all political parties have their own Internet activists, who are very active on social networks. Anonymous comments prevail, and reports are full of misinformation and partial information. Creating your own opinion becomes dependent on such information. It is better for democracy to have no information than to have untrue information.

      As I said at the outset, the Internet and new communication technologies accelerate the speed of information sharing, but threaten a deeper reflection on social issues. Democracy cannot rely on instant decision making. The complexity of social and political issues in Montenegro and elsewhere in the world requires a broader view than just comments on social networks. I see the Internet and other communication technologies as an educational tool that should be the main carrier of democratic development. The Internet can help to spread democracy, but primarily, it is an aid to education and acquiring new knowledge. Only in using it that way can we come to a full and sustainable democracy. There is always the risk of someone emerging with better and faster communication technology, and such developments present new challenges and new dangers to democracy.

      Mr RIVARD (Observer from Canada)* – I am always delighted to be able to contribute to the very important work of this Assembly. Our rapporteur, Madame Brasseur, has done a remarkable job and has described the opportunities presented by these new information and communication technologies, but also the difficulties that arise for democracy.

      The proliferation of personal information on the Internet and the protection of the private lives of Internet users raise a number of concerns, yet the advent of the Internet and of social media tools has also opened up new opportunities for mobilisation and greater participation by citizens in the work of our democratic institutions.

      I want to mention the efforts recently made by the Government of Canada in the field of open data and open government, as a member of the partnership for transparent government, which is an international initiative.

      The Canadian Government launched its strategy for an open government in March 2011 and became a member of the partnership for transparent government in April 2012. The strategy for an open government seeks to promote activities based on an open government in Canada. It has three aspects: first, making raw data available to citizens, administrations, non-profit organisations and the private sector; secondly, openly, proactively and continually divulging information on the activities of the government, including extending access to Canadian Government documents and creating a virtual library of all sorts of documents published by the government; and, thirdly, giving Canadians the possibility of engaging in an open dialogue with the federal government within the framework of various forms of public consultation.

      In parallel, the government announced Canada’s support for an international charter of principles concerning open data. This was done on the occasion of Canada’s participation in the summit of G8 leaders in Northern Ireland. The charter commits governments to respect the following principles: data are open by default; as many high-quality data as possible are disseminated in a timely manner and in the greatest possible number of formats; and data are disseminated with a view to improving governments and ensuring innovation.

      It is important that governments commit to these principles of open government and open data. The measures that have been taken are encouraging, but much remains to be done to ensure greater participation by citizens and make sure that this information is available to them.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I congratulate Ms Brasseur on this excellent report on the Internet and politics, which is very topical, and commend her for managing to define a very broad issue in such a comprehensive way. I also express my support for the proposal on a Council of Europe White Paper on democracy, politics and the Internet.

      The Internet is not outside democracy, but an integral part of it, as the report rightly says. It does not change reality but the way in which we present it. Virtual reality does exist, but it is only a human creation. In the end, the virtual community may not be permanent, but politics and the society in which we live are permanent. We cannot sign out of politics as quickly as from Facebook, nor should we; politics does not work that way. Nowadays all information is quickly accessible to a large group of people for use or abuse. The Internet has become part of the practices of politics, civil society and democratic procedures. It can be a strategic and tactical arena for doing politics. I agree with the rapporteur that the change in practices has been enormous.

      We have seen how the Internet has improved democracy on a global scale. One example can be taken from countries at war. During the Balkans crisis, the Internet served as a means to keep in touch over the borders and enable communication among the citizens. The Arab Spring is an example of what we can achieve through the use of social media – something we could not even have imagined a few years earlier. Politics has willingly embraced the Internet as a tool. The report rightly suggests that political actors must carry responsibility for the use of the Internet and also, consequently, for legislation, bearing in mind other non-legislative measures.

      Cyber-security is an important issue that I hope draws the attention of political parties in terms of politics and legislation. I urge you all carefully to develop national strategies for cyber-security.

      I am worried about citizens’ access to the Internet. In April, we will discuss the report by my Finnish colleague, Ms Pelkonen, on the right to Internet access. It is not unheard of in Finland that the only way to get Internet access is to take your computer up to the roof of your house. This is not safe for anyone, especially for the old granny living in a remote area.

      Children must be protected from the threats of the Internet. Although I have my reservations about additional regulation, we need to aspire to zero tolerance in this regard. No criminal activities should be directed at children online.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – The Internet has given us a democratic revolution. Information can no longer be controlled by the leaders of countries; everyone has access to it. There is one exception – communist North Korea, where everything is controlled and they do not have any Internet. However, even the case of China shows how difficult it is to control and try to delete information that is harmful to the State leadership.

      The situation is very lovely today. Thirty years ago, I got one letter and one telephone call a day from voters; now, I usually get 50 e-mails every day. That shows how intense the communication between members of parliaments is nowadays. Transparency has increased enormously. If a measure is under preparation, everything is available on the Internet – people can search, make contact with civil servants, and comment. That clearly shows the democratic process. Finland is a good example of this practice.

      But everything that is good also has bad sides. I expect that in 10 years’ time, unfortunately, we will not have any printing presses any more. That is a danger for democracy, because the whole logic of information changes. We no longer get information with a clear picture of the world, but search for it through our systems, and all the information will be fragmented. In certain cases, this gives people the possibility of making very rational choices, but we can see that the way in which the world changes might make things difficult in future.

      What is the consequence of all this? We should understand that people need less control by politicians. We have to shift the power from the politicians and parliaments to the people. People are no longer subjects of the State, but customers of the State. They choose and select – they have full information and they know what to do.

      It is simply not possible to control the Internet because it would require global agreements. There is no full privacy in the whole system internationally. If hackers can get into the Pentagon’s systems, that shows that everyone can break these systems. There is a commercial logic to the whole system. We give information about ourselves to providers who can send commercials to us. What is very important is trust in the system. The day people can no longer send payments through Internet systems because there is no trust, the whole system collapses. It is in everyone’s interest that authorities have such powers to fight against criminals on the Internet to ensure that the system remains trustworthy. We have to study this subject further because it will be very important for the future.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I, too, congratulate you on your election, Madam President.

      The report discusses a very interesting and topical issue that reflects current interests and raises significant questions. The penetration of web technologies into politics is a complex and controversial process. Computer technologies opened up opportunities for multiple communication. Everyone with access to the Internet may act as a sender and receiver of information. The Internet creates informational space for direct communication on political issues, creating mechanisms for a real dialogue in society and widening political participation.

      Global networks enable a continuous socio-political dispute in real time between authorities and citizens. The establishment of e-government is a huge contribution of the Internet, and makes links between people and government much stronger, more transparent and easier. For a modern politician, it is impossible to win the race for power without access to traditional media resources. The experience of various election campaigns in different countries shows that there is a new, less laborious way of influencing people’s minds. It has advantages: easy and immediate publishing of information, the ability to search thematically and quick access for monitoring situations. This process tends to grow.

      The Internet is becoming one of the main sources of information from which the youth draws information about political leaders, parties and blocs, and elections. At the same time, there is an increasing negative impact by some Internet resources on the outlook of the youth. Sometimes the question is raised on the influence of the State on social networks as a limitation of the freedoms of the citizen. Is this true? In the modem world, the Internet is an indicator of democracy and freedom of speech and expression. Today there is no way to put any limitation on the Internet. That is why we should speak about the regulation of Internet space. I will use the example of traffic rules: without following the rules and duties of traffic law, there would be chaos on the roads. In order to resist global challenges in the future, it will be necessary to have legislation that prevents the emergence and spread of criminally oriented resources and resources devoted to racism, nationalism and extremism that are corrupting and misleading the youth.

      In my country, freedom of the Internet is one of our main achievements. Today about 65% of the population are Internet users, with hundreds of bloggers and more than 1 million users of social networks. As in any country, social networks are an inseparable part of our lives. The foundation of the Azerbaijan Technical University, the declaration of 2013 as the year of ICT (New Information and Communication Technology), and transparent, free and unlimited access to the Internet illustrate the attention that is paid to this issue in my country. We cannot prevent progress. Politics, like other spheres of life, should march in step with new technologies.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I fully support this very useful and excellent report. The first sentence of the book published in the 19th century which circulated throughout the countries of Europe warned of the trend that had the power to change the continent and the world: “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism”. After 1848, when this phrase was first used, that spectre gradually penetrated all corners of the world and changed many things. Now it is the 21st century and a new grand spectre is haunting Europe and the world.

      It is true that, in essence, this new spectre is lighter than the previous one, being helpful to each human being and making his life easier. Nevertheless, regardless of all its positive aspects, this new spectre – the Internet, which surrounds the entire world – has its own shortcomings and threats. If a few years ago liberty in the Internet space was assessed as one of the most important manifestations of democracy, now this giant spider is seen as a force causing regular damage to both democracy and human rights; for example, as a space for provoking racism, intolerance and disagreement, as well as animosity among nations, religions and cultures. A tiny spark of hatred placed on the Internet goes round the world within a few minutes and its initiators succeed in keeping the fire burning due to the effect of the Internet, thus further deepening the generation of mutual hatred.

      States, governments and parliaments are entitled to adopt decisions and draft documents that prevent actions generating racism, intolerance and international animosity. Certainly, all these are necessary and should be continued henceforth. None the less, uncontrolled persons who benefit from the long hands of the Internet can easily continue their black activities by ignoring these most exemplary laws and documents. That is why we should manage the overall functioning of mechanisms that will be able to control the Internet network in the background of these laws. The fair domination of legal norms in all spheres of the Internet space is also important for ensuring the significance of this power that generates no obstacles for democracy but provides support for it.

      The world, this kind Earth, is our common house and nest. The Internet is a power that gradually makes this nest much smaller, thus bringing us much closer to each other. Currently, the most supreme duty of the spectre of the Internet, which delivers this great truth to humanity through minimising the world, is its ability to build the hardest shields against any possible trends incompatible with human rights. All of us, including the Council of Europe, should resolutely unite our efforts in this respect.

      THE PRESIDENT – Now I give the floor to Mr Connarty from Scotland – the United Kingdom. I am sorry but he always underlines that he comes from Scotland, but he represents the UK delegation.

      Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – My accent gives me away to be Scottish. I hope it is not mixed with an English accent. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this report, which you developed and presented to the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, and the contributions by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      I welcome the opportunity for present and future generations to participate in a wider and more open democratic politics. Here in the Council of Europe we have facilitated the wider participation of youth organisations through the Edgeryders, the Council of Europe Internet portal. I have an eight year-old granddaughter who received an iPod for her seventh birthday, which she uses regularly to contact us from Australia. I recognise that her generation will not allow the almost secret elite party politics most of us came through to survive. That will be a good thing for the demos whom we try to represent through the 21st century.

      However, the final report, even amended, does not deal with the issue of who owns the e-mails we send and receive through the Internet. Paragraph 3.5 of the recommendation talks about fundamental freedoms, but are they really guaranteed? I call the Assembly’s notice to a challenging case widely publicised in the UK. A petrochemical company based in my constituency in Grangemouth in Scotland, Ineos, decided that it owned all the e-mail correspondence sent from Unite the union to the trade union convenors at their office in the Ineos production plant. Ineos said that all e-mails that came to an ineos.com address were the property of Ineos, not the recipient. These included policy papers and trade union briefings from the head office of Unite to the regional head office, if the local convenors were copied in the list of recipients.

      The aim of the company was to provoke a dispute with the trade union by victimising the convenor, who was also the chairman of the local Labour Party. This sounds like something from a Third World nation but it was in the UK. The company ignored the fact that all the e-mails were addressed or copied to the individual citizen at an ineos.com address. It sent more than 1 000 e-mails to The Times as part of its campaign of vilification of the convenor, who resigned to protect his family from media pressure. Unite will be pursuing the question of the breach of its rights to privacy for its e-mails through the courts, and it may end up here in the European Court of Human Rights. But the issue remains of who owns the e-mails of a personal or political nature that citizens receive; for example, if I receive one at [email protected], or at [email protected], do I own the e-mail or does the company? It must be the citizen who wins this argument.

      THE PRESIDENT – I cannot see Mr Ariev so we will go to the next speaker, Mr Ivanovski.

      Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – As a member of the delegation from the Republic of Macedonia, I congratulate you, Madam President, on your election and your great report. It is up to date, substantial and gives good direction for the future. We are discussing new information technologies – the Internet, social media and social networks. They have become a core of democracy; people have started to feel democracy and own it, rather than just being a part of it. The technologies have increased contacts and the opportunities for people – not just politicians – to present their views. They have increased the representation of groups and interests and raised our responsibility and accountability as politicians.

      However, we must not forget that the main issue is democracy, of which the Internet is just a part; I agree with colleagues who described it as a just a tool. The Internet is a great gift for democracy but it could also be a means of misusing democracy. I remind members that the Internet helped organisations such as WikiLeaks, through which people have understood the secrets of countries. It has helped in the election of MPs through Facebook and Twitter. It has aided the globalisation of democracy; the Arab Spring was immensely helped by new information technology.

      At the same time, however, the Internet has helped extremist groups – including, unfortunately, neo-Nazis or neo-fascists – to become more visible, especially for young people. It has also increased hate speech and anti-migration issues. That is why I say that the Internet is a tool – it manifests democracy but is not a substitute for it. I agree that there are countries with high rates of Internet penetration, but let us not forget that the Internet should not act as a substitute for existing conventional media. In plenty of countries with huge Internet penetration and extensive new social media activity, the media lack freedom and there is limited freedom of expression. China, for example, has very high levels of Internet penetration, but the Internet is controlled. There are still such countries in Europe. Democracy cannot be understood as an iPhone or Android application. The Internet should be treated as a rapidly increasing medium, applied and regulated according to the same principles and standards as pertain to the conventional media. That is why I support the report’s proposal to continue the debate and activities aimed at tackling the issue of the Internet and politics and improving democratic standards in Europe and worldwide.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Mendes Bota is not here, so I call Mr Hovhannisyan.

      Mr HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – The report is a result of deep concerns and contains a profound analysis. The challenges that we face have been clearly emphasised by the authors. All of us clearly see the impact of the Internet and new technologies on countries and societies. Many of us have seen great changes inside our countries as a result of that impact. In some societies, the process of democratisation and liberalisation would be more difficult without the Internet and new technologies, which break the limits, bans and obstacles to the freedom of speech and help build a free media. However, they also bring new challenges.

      Colleagues, we represent different countries and societies with diverse traditions and different levels of democratic development. The problems and nuances are different, even in something as universal as the Internet. In countries with so-called transitional democracies, these resources are very often misused by the authorities. In my country, which I know best, the political monopoly has created a situation in which the vast majority of State servants are forced to work for the sake of one political party. You can often witness civil servants using even their personal pages on social networks to protect the interests of the ruling party, although they might actually have different opinions themselves. Moreover, sometimes the authorities create and provoke false “civil movements”, widely using web resources and disorienting the public. That is an example of how the political monopoly can affect freedom of expression in the web.

      So-called “Internet democracy” is on a difficult path in countries with political and economic monopolies. Having centralised the main financial resources, the authorities easily create mechanisms to detain and distort the process of technological democratisation. In many countries, Internet technology is used to blackmail, discredit political opponents, spread libel and sometimes even to wire-tap. In Armenia, we have been subject to that practice, especially during the parliamentary elections in 2012.

      There is another problem that was not highlighted in the report. The Internet and social networks are great resources for propaganda. For regions with frozen conflicts, they can serve as great means for spreading ideas of tolerance and peace, and can ease tensions. However, as a rule the opposite is the case. I have been looking through the Azerbaijani online media and have found not a single word about reconciliation, peace, mutual respect and tolerance. Its online resources are fully used for spreading threats, hatred, calls for revenge and so on. I suggest adding a point about the proper use of internet resources, declaring as not permissible appeals for violence, calls for the elimination of cultural heritage and intolerance itself.

      Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – Let me start by congratulating you, Madam President, on your election to the presidency and on preparing and submitting the report. The impact on politics and democracy of the Internet and new technologies in general is an extremely complex issue with many aspects. The rapporteur has managed to address all those successfully and has discussed the great opportunities, but also the great risks, related to Internet and democracy.

      We can all agree that participatory democracy is enhanced through the direct engagement of citizens in the decision-making process. The widespread use of new communication and information technologies has greatly facilitated the spread of democracy in many areas of the world and in many spheres of public interest, but it has also led to an overload of information, sometimes false and misleading – a fact that can be detrimental, given the volatile nature of politics.

      We are all in favour of citizens’ immediate and direct access to information and of their participation in shaping decisions that affect them. We encourage their involvement in bringing to the public eye deficiencies of the State and defective policies implemented by local authorities and other public bodies. Owing to the Internet, governments have become increasingly accountable to their citizens. That is a very positive development, provided, of course, that such exposure does not lead to inaction or populist phenomena.

      The revolution in online communication has made citizens' active participation a decisive factor in legitimising public policies, but it has also opened a huge field of unknown or uncalculated dangers and risks. These risks range from security issues to access to private information and personal data, violation of privacy, online stalking and so on. Where does one draw the line? What does legitimate free speech allow and what is prohibited under impermissible hate speech? When should online information be blocked? What kind of legal framework can adequately address the security issues at stake and set the conditions for online participatory democracy, bearing in mind that the pace of technological change will most likely outstrip the State’s ability to regulate the Internet in time? How can we bolster citizens’ privacy and civil liberties, when governments and intelligence agencies can, at any time, track down any individual’s online data? The answers to those questions are difficult and multifaceted. There is no turning back, however, and we have no alternative but to embrace technological advances and move forward.

      THE PRESIDENT – We can have one last speaker on this subject. I call Mr Taliadouros.

      Mr TALIADOUROS (Greece)* – The introduction of new information and communication technologies has had a significant impact on democracy. The dissemination enabled by the Internet has shaken up the entire world of communications. The use of the Internet for politics has had a major impact on political life. However, the Internet can be used wrongly to disseminate negative information, and we must be concerned about that. Information belongs to everybody and we should do what we can to keep the transparency of the Internet and oversee its impact. We should also strive to supervise monitoring and decision making and take into account the role citizens can play. We want to maintain a dialogue between political parties and citizens.

      The Internet should be a safe and secure environment that is used properly. Web users and administrators of the Internet should ensure a safe and secure environment is provided with regard to data and the use of the Internet. There should be common rules that are fully adhered to. We need to have regard for the effectiveness and efficiency of the Internet but we must not allow any infringing of fundamental rights and freedoms. We should take action to ensure that freedom of expression is guaranteed, but we also need to guard against public opinion being manipulated. The Internet must be used to enrich and support democracy, not destroy it.

      The role the European Union has to play here is crucial. Legal initiatives are not sufficient if they are only taken at national level. Each member State should draw on the experience of other countries and we need to continue to co-operate in this field with a view to striking a better balance and having a more secure environment. If we can strike this balance between freedom, privacy and human rights, we will have succeeded.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

      It is 11.45 a.m., I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list, and present during the debate, who have not been able to speak may be given, in typescript only, to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

      I call Ms Guţu to reply. You have three and a half minutes remaining.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova.)* – I thank all the speakers. The vast majority of them have fully endorsed this comprehensive report and the draft recommendation has been supported as well. Of course we have to ensure that the Internet remains open, and I fully share the concerns expressed by Ms Hovhannisyan that sometimes it is difficult to link together responsibility and anonymity of information on the Internet. I also agree that the Assembly has an important role to play in ensuring this White Paper is drafted.

      Mr Shlegel mentioned that it is important to go further than just drafting a White Paper, and I agree. We should formulate laws to address this. You talked about the need to strike the right balance between direct democracy and representative democracy. I would like to mention that representative democracy is participative, because otherwise it is no longer a democracy. In paragraph 90 of our report we mention the importance of striking that proper balance and the fact that we cannot do away with this form of democracy.

      Electronic democracy is very much on the march in our countries, and we need to be progressive in respect of democracy and voting. Mr Le Borgn’ mentioned electronic voting and Mr Recordon had a slightly different view. Online voting is important in particular with regard to emerging democracies, where there are different circumstances that need to be addressed in order to enable their citizens to have a say and a vote. I greatly appreciated what Ms Schneider-Schneiter said about citizens. We need to take a surveillance measure to combat terrorism.

      We cannot do without the Internet. We need to maintain our fundamental values such as human rights, the rule of law, pluralism and democracy. We need to use it to regain the trust of our citizens, as one of the speakers mentioned. We have to listen to what they have to say, too. We also must ensure security is guaranteed in using the Internet. People must be protected from the many invisible dangers that there are.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is now closed.

      The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution, to which five amendments have been tabled; and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the revised compendium issued this morning. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

       Is that so Ms Guţu?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova.)* – Yes.

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

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 13, insert the following paragraph:

      “The accountability of Internet operators is therefore a key issue which the Assembly is currently dealing with via two reports on the right to Internet access and on co-ordinated strategies for effective Internet governance. At the European Union level, the “Code of EU online rights” and the “Digital Agenda for Europe” initiatives are also concerned with this issue.”Am

      Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17.1, add the following words:

      “, in particular through social networks, parliamentary Internet channels and other platforms allowing citizens to provide feedback;” Am

      Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17.9.2.2, add the following words:

      “, while averting the risk that such an institution could undermine the very nature of freedom of expression.”Am

      Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.11, add the following sub-paragraph:

      “pursue the reflection, in close co-operation with the Venice Commission, with a view to elaborating a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) on the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, as stressed in Resolution 1746 (2010) and Recommendation 1928 (2010), and pay special attention to the role of the Internet and other digital tools of participation, such as social networks, online platforms of discussion, electronic voting and open government initiatives”.We

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Binley, Mr Neill, Ms Gillan and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

      “That said, the development of communication technologies in future will allow the use of electronic voting for the expansion of the traditional mechanisms of democracy. This process should be gradual. It can contribute to the establishment of terms of initial questions that might be addressed by electronic voting, with the definition of issues at both a global and a local level.”I

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SCHEGEL (Russian Federation.)* – I spoke about this in my speech. This report refers to electronic democracy and I think we should add that paragraph.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to sub-amendment 1 to amendment 5, which was tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in amendment 5, replace the words “paragraph 5” with the words “paragraph 4” and delete the words “That said,”.

      I call Ms Guţu to support Sub-amendment 1.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova.)* – This was unanimously adopted by the committee. Mr Shlegel agreed as well.

       THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

      That is not the case.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

      We come now to Sub-amendment 2 to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in Amendment 5, delete the last sentence.

      I call Ms Guţu to support Sub-amendment 2 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The sub-amendment would simply delete the last sentence from Amendment 5.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Mr Shlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I am not against what the committee has said, but the sentence would not change the meaning of the text. We need to determine what kind of issues might be addressed by electronic voting. If we do not include the sentence, there will be no mention in the whole text of how we establish which issues will be covered.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Sub-amendment 2 is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

      I call Mr Recordon.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – I would ask you not to vote for the amendment. Electronic voting is promising, but it is not sufficiently developed to cope with the risks of hacking and manipulation. More thinking is needed on the topic before we vote for it.

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

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13386, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13386, as amended, is adopted, with 135 votes for, 2 against and 4 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13386.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13386 is adopted, with 141 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

3. Address by Mr Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament. After his address, Mr Schulz has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

      Mr Schulz, we are honoured and delighted to welcome you to our Chamber today. This was, in fact, your Chamber for several years, given that we shared this building; the European Parliament was a tenant here. Now you have your own – a wonderful building on the opposite bank of the river. There is a footbridge that joins our two buildings, which symbolises our co-operation and dialogue, which we have to bolster. We have so much to share and a great deal to gain.

      The year that has just got under way will be marked by a number of important dates in the agenda. For the European Union, there will be elections for the European Parliament, and for both our organisations 2014 will mark the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Mr Schulz, I am delighted that you are one of the first visitors that I have been able to welcome since I became President of the Parliamentary Assembly. I feel that that symbolises the synergies we have developed between our Assemblies, which we need to value and nurture.

      At the beginning of this month, we met in Brussels with the chairs of the political groups in the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly. We must continue such meetings. I hope that that task will be pursued by your successor in the European Parliament.

      As President of the Parliamentary Assembly, I would like to wish you a warm welcome.

      Mr Schulz, you have the floor.

      Mr SCHULZ (President of the European Parliament)* – Ms Brasseur, first of all, congratulations on your recent election to the presidency. Thank you for your warm words of welcome.

      For me, this is a moving moment. It is emotional for me to be in this Chamber, because it is true that I was a tenant way back, as Ms Brasseur rightly pointed out. Here is where I took my first ever parliamentary steps.

      Co-operation between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is not just about institutional contacts, because, looking around this Chamber, I can see an awful lot of faces of friends and colleagues with whom I have had the pleasure to work over the past few decades, ever since I became involved in European politics. I have met you at various levels, and now I meet you here in this Chamber. We are now also talking about other types of relationship, such as national relationships and international contacts. You are my friends, and for me this is a wonderful moment in time.

      Back in 1990, I was sat over there in that seat, where a young Italian colleague is now sitting. It is a great pleasure to see you there.

      At the time, the European Parliament would meet on the Friday morning of the session week; it does not do so any more, which I deplore. On Friday at noon, the session would be brought to an end, and two people would always be there – right to the bitter end of the part-session. The first was Otto von Habsburg, on the Conservative side; the second was myself – yours truly – on the Social Democrat side. We were always there to the very end. There was also another colleague, who was here not as a member but as a staff member representing the European Commission. Our trio was in here in the Chamber right until Friday noon of our part-sessions. Thank you for welcoming me to this plenary Chamber.

      I am a strong believer in, and fight for, parliamentarianism. I fight for it. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, you are at the source of transnational parliamentarianism in Europe. The European Parliament has followed in your footsteps: we have picked up where you left off. The Council of Europe was the first to moot the idea of a European Union of some sort. It gave shape, soul and spirit to the concept. The Council of Europe provided the premise for a community of European values, namely, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the social market economy. The Council of Europe promoted those values and you really set the standard. In our day-to-day activities, we continue to measure ourselves against those standards.

      The European Convention on Human Rights was a historic moment and a turning point on an international scale. It is based on the idea that each individual – regardless of his or her origin, religion, race or sex – has inalienable rights that they should be able to enjoy and that they should be able to live without fear or danger. If we consider the history of the 20th century, we will realise that that concept was revolutionary for the peoples of Europe. Personally, I would argue that it was one of civilisation’s greatest achievements.

      The entire institution of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly is, to some extent, the conscience of Europe. After the revolutions in central and eastern Europe, this place was renewed and refreshed and became a real symbol for the democratisation of societies throughout the whole of Europe.

The Council of Europe created a transnational Parliamentary Assembly that met for the first time in Strasbourg in August 1949. Its first President was Paul Henri Spaak, who referred to this Assembly as a “grand Assembly”, and he was absolutely right to do so – that was a good choice of words. His ambition was to ensure that members of the Parliamentary Assembly did exactly what parliamentarians should do. There was a desire to unite Europe and the first thing that that first Parliamentary Assembly did when it came together as a consultative body was deal with the Committee of Ministers, which was told in no uncertain terms that it should no longer have a veto policy. Nowadays, I often attend the European Union Council of Ministers and it gives me a sense of déjà vu.

What Paul Henri Spaak said about European unification is still true to this very day. He said that Europe could not be created by a wave of enthusiasm alone. He added that we needed a unified and united Europe, but that it would not happen overnight – it would be a long, drawn-out and difficult process.

      Europe and European democracy are the result of real, sustained efforts, which we as members of parliament experience every single day. Last year the European Union went from one summit to another and made decisions that have had an impact on all of us. Heads of State and government came together in the European Council, where there was a lot of pressure and a lot of meetings took place behind closed doors. Markets exercise an enormous amount of pressure and we can only imagine what it must be like to make swift decisions – without lengthy, drawn-out procedures – under such pressure. I think, however, that what happened then was an exception and I do not think that that exception should become the rule.

      The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas talked about how the European Council had inappropriately arrogated certain rights to itself. Instead, we need close co-operation between national and European members of parliament, in order to ensure that there are checks and balances and that the executive body is held to account at the European level.

      A new chapter was opened during the parliamentary week of the European semester when 150 members of parliament from 26 member States took part in a two-day meeting in Brussels. That sent a strong signal that we want to work together on democratic control and scrutiny and on economic scrutiny in the European Union. That is what we are striving for. I hope that that co-operation between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will become ever deeper and that our relationship will become ever more intense.

      As Ms Brasseur has said, we have the same meeting venues – we meet in the same city. I am somewhat troubled, however, that we seem to meet in parallel and that our business does not coincide. I want to enhance our co-operation through, for instance, our staff and personnel. We could find avenues to explore how better co-operation would make political sense. We often work together on electoral observation missions. Our activities in such missions in the OSCE countries are important. We need to make sure that we sing from the same hymn sheet and co-ordinate our efforts. We already have successful forms of co-operation, so let us build on that.

      As Ms Brasseur has said, her predecessor, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, visited the European Parliament this month. He called on the European Parliament to ensure that the experience and knowledge of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe be used to a greater extent. On behalf of the European Parliament, I accept that invitation to build on your knowledge and experience, which is often of great value to our work and is already being incorporated into it. That includes resolutions adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly, the Venice Commission report and the judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights.

      The subject of this morning’s debate – Ms Brasseur’s report on the Internet and democracy – is a key topic for us as well. We are very concerned about protection of the private sphere and personal data. Protecting individual freedoms and privacy is part of the basic values of the European Union. In a way, we take it for granted. The freedom of individuals is important, which is why the European Parliament is currently working on data protection guidelines. We want to ensure that data protection is sound and that any breaches are penalised and sanctioned.

It is important that Europe does not simply adopt the models of other entities; our work needs to be based on our own values and we need to build our own system. We really could benefit from closer co-operation on such issues. We could generate synergies, because both of our institutions are based here and we are natural partners. The European Union and the Council of Europe have both set standards on the safeguarding of human rights and the protection of democracy. We must make sure that all of our actions abide by those standards. I am particularly referring to current developments in our neighbouring countries. It is important to ensure that we remember all those whose entitlement to the rule of law is being threatened right now. In addition, the death penalty remains on the statute book in some of our neighbouring countries, and that is also an important concern to both our organisations. We also have common hopes for new constitutions that enshrine common values, such as we saw recently in Moldova and in Tunisia, another neighbouring country of ours. That is positive and we want to continue with this work. I believe that this is a common goal for all of us; we want to make sure that democracy and the rule of law are supported everywhere.

      The Venice Commission has carried out very helpful work on new constitutions. It was, first, important for our eastern neighbours, as it made sure that they had better electoral laws and legislative reforms. The European Union and its neighbouring countries have a parliamentary dialogue, for example, in Euronest, where we can talk about democracy and human rights. The dialogue is marked by mutual respect and the genuine will to work together. Last week, in Brussels, Prime Minister Erdoğan had an exchange of views with the heads of the political parties in the European Parliament. During the past few years, Turkey has made remarkable progress on the rule of law and the distribution of powers, but a lot of people, including us, are worried about whether the good progress will continue. That is why the European Parliament must say that the freedom of the press is simply an inalienable right that cannot be tampered with, as it is essential if we are to have democracy. We therefore expect every government to guarantee it; whether the government is within the European Union or outside it, there must be freedom of the press in all cases.

I know that during this part-Session in Strasbourg, you are going to be talking about recent dramatic developments that have taken place in a neighbouring part of the world. We are sorry to see that there have been conflicts in Ukraine between the police force and demonstrators. That is very sad, so I make an appeal to all of you: please, put an end to this violence and talk to one another in order to find a peaceful solution. We must find our way out of this crisis. The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, and the European Parliament, cannot just stand by and watch what is going on. We cannot simply do nothing while the violence escalates. We must do whatever we can, pulling out all the stops, to foster a dialogue between the interested parties, and we must make sure that the situation does not deteriorate. Sanctions cannot be ruled out.

      We welcome the fact that the Ukrainian Parliament has now retracted some of the contested legislation on freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. That is an important and good signal, but it will not suffice in order to resolve the political crisis; other steps will be required. Baroness Ashton, the EU Special Representative on these matters, is currently holding talks in Kiev. My colleague from the European Parliament, Mr Elmar Brok, who chairs the Committee on Foreign Affairs, will also take part in talks, and our colleagues over there are talking to all stakeholders and interested parties, trying to find a peaceful solution. Upon their return, the delegation will report back to the European Parliament and we will then have to take a decision. The year before last, I said to Mr Cox and Mr Kwaśniewski, “Perhaps you could organise some kind of other mediation mission to deal with the situation pertaining to Ms Tymoshenko.” I would like to take the opportunity to thank you, because Pat Cox and Aleksander Kwaśniewski were able to organise a mission – I believe they travelled to Ukraine 27 times over the course of 18 months, and they did whatever they could – and the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe supported their action. I thank you most warmly for that, because without such support the mission could not have been successful. I thank my colleagues who sit here in the Parliamentary Assembly and everyone who works for the Council of Europe for that valuable support.

      What holds true for the outside – the external dimension – must also hold true within our entities, and nothing can be taken for granted. We need to make sure that all efforts are deployed to ensure that we really can stand up to those who would like to weaken the protection of our fundamental rights. On that, the European Parliament is completely united; our agreement crosses all party political boundaries. My colleague Joseph Daul, the president of the Group of the European People’s Party in the European Parliament, said recently that safeguarding the rule of law and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary are some of the greatest challenges we will face in Europe in the next few years. The European Union must be honest and self-critical, because we expect candidate countries to abide by the Copenhagen criteria – that is an absolute must, a sine qua non – but once they join the European Union and are within it, we take it for granted that all problems have been resolved and that everything is fine. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

      The European Union, of course, lacks the adequate instruments to deal with situations that might arise where, for example, the rule of law is, in some way, being challenged or undermined in our member States. We are therefore trying to see how we could set up other instruments, a little like we do in the economic and monitoring spheres, that will help us to ensure that our basic and fundamental rights are safeguarded in our own member States. The Commission will be making proposals on that soon. We are not expecting anyone to reinvent the wheel. It is important for us to concentrate on certain specific areas where the European Union must step in and act. There are areas where we do not need to do that because other instruments and avenues to explore are available to us.

      I come to the whole issue of the European Union signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights. That will be an important moment in time, because it will allow us to use what we already have – to rely on our acquis. If and when we join, we would also be subject of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg. That would mean that our two Parliaments – this Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament of the European Union – will be working even more closely together in future once this happens. When we get that far, a delegation of the European Parliament will come before this plenary Session and a common rapporteur will be selected by the two entities to deal with the ECHR. The influence of the Court on the day-to-day legislative work of the European Parliament will be ever greater in future after we join the Convention. We had 50 years of artificial separation, but from that moment on we will have convergence and coherence between the two.

      As President of the European Parliament, I have some expectations. For instance, I am looking forward, with great impatience, to the moment when we join the Convention – I cannot wait for that to happen. I hope that in future we will able to join our forces and rally them, and that we can, by working together, protect human rights and safeguard democracy. It has taken a long time for a President of the European Parliament to be able to take the floor before you, once again, in this Chamber – it has been far too long. Please interpret my standing here before you today as a tribute to the Parliamentary Assembly. I want to pay tribute to you because, after all, everything that is about transnational democracy in Europe today originated with you – it came from you. Whoever my successor might be, I hope that it will not be so long before another President of the European Parliament has the opportunity to come here to speak to you once again. Thank you very much for your attention, ladies and gentlemen.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much indeed President Schulz for your very clear and committed words. I really hope that your successor will take them fully on board, so that our co-operation can be strengthened, as that is in the interests of all citizens of Europe.

      We now come to the questions.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – On a point of order, President.

      THE PRESIDENT – You do not have the Floor. Under Rule 21.3, I ask you to leave the room. As President, I have to apply the rules.

      I call Mr Corsini to put a question on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr CORSINI (Italy)* – Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you, President, and wish you a good term of office.

      I appreciate what President Schulz had to say about the rule of law, rights and democracy. We are all convinced that the future of Europe depends on more weight being given to communities, but economic issues are also crucial. I want to ask President Schulz, a German, whether the decisions, inspired by Germany, to apply rigour and austerity actually undermine our efforts to relaunch our economies. This is a serious problem and the resulting economic difficulties have led to populism, the rejection of politics and so on.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I remind members that they have only 30 seconds in which to ask their question.

      Mr SCHULZ* – How long do I have to answer?

      THE PRESIDENT* – You are our guest.

      Mr SCHULZ* – I will try to be as brief as I can.

      Mr Corsini is right that I am German, but a fascinating thing about the European Union is that we have a transnational democracy. I am here as the President of the European Parliament and not as a German ambassador.

      The overwhelming majority of people in Europe, including almost all MEPs, feel that the consolidation of budgets is crucial. We need a sustainable and fair economic policy. I was born after the war and did not have to bear the same guilt as my parents and did not have to pass it on to my children. We have to stop leaving debts to our children and their children. Without economic development, we will not be able to consolidate our economies, which is why growth and employment are vital. We have talked about budgetary consolidation, but we have not done enough to combat youth unemployment. I agreed with Mr Corsini when he said that we need an economic policy that encourages investment and growth while also consolidating budgets. If we do not see economic growth and experience an imbalance, that could lead to part-renationalisation and exclusion, and nations will argue with each other. We must fight against this poison that has destroyed Europe in the past. Stability is so important and we need to work together.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Agramunt to put a question on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Mr Schulz, I welcome you to the Chamber in which you sat some years ago.

      Mr Barroso has referred to Mr Putin’s comments on the Ukrainian conflict, which started when the Ukrainian people revolted against their leadership because they were unhappy at the agreement with the European Union being broken off. Did the European Union perhaps get it wrong? Should it have been clearer about President Yanukovych and the future of the country? We are also concerned about the situation in Georgia. Mr Schulz, are you also concerned by the current developments?

      Mr SCHULZ* – I have already spoken about Ukraine and the European Parliament’s view on the developments.

      I do not think that 21st century conflicts can be resolved by the use of force. All stakeholders should be aware of that. We live in a media society and people can follow things in real time, so if something happens in Kiev or somewhere else in Ukraine, people can hear about it straightaway, which is a good thing, because it means that anonymous force cannot be deployed to repress democracy and democratic forces. That is one advantage of this online world in which we live. Conflicts can be resolved only through dialogue, which must involve all stakeholders. Yesterday, Brussels sent a message to the Russian Federation asking the authorities to use their influence to stop the violence and to foster dialogue. That is what the European Union has to say about the situation. The Parliamentary Assembly here has an advantage over the European Parliament because you have members from the Russian Federation, which makes the Assembly a rather unique place and a good platform for potential dialogue.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Clappison to put a question on behalf the European Democrat Group.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I welcome and thank you, President Schulz, for your words about parliamentarianism. You will recall that we were promised a better relationship between national parliaments and the European Union at the time of the Treaty of Lisbon, but when 14 parliaments in member States triggered the yellow card procedure following a proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office, the Commission ignored them and pressed ahead regardless. It was entitled to do so, but it is hardly consistent with the spirit of democracy. When unelected officials can override elected MPs, there is surely a democratic deficit. We must do more to address the problem, so that national parliaments are more respected, which is hardly to the fore at the moment.

      Mr SCHULZ – I entirely agree that elected members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament should always have priority over non-elected civil servants. Members of the European Commission are elected, so I must defend them. Now that the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, the outgoing Commission should evaluate, at the end of a European Parliament session, how the yellow card procedure is functioning. The problem is that the Commission and the college of commissioners have taken an initiative, but eight or nine parliaments disagree with it. The Commission, after a long period of analysis, debate and decision-making, launched a proposal, and I am not surprised that some national Parliaments disagreed. The Commission said that it was not prepared to withdraw it. That is understandable, because the Commission suggested the proposal because it thought it was necessary, but I am not surprised that Parliaments reacted badly.

      I asked for an analysis of which suggestions made by the Commission make national Parliaments angry. I have not deepened the analysis, but the first overview shows that national Parliaments – I often agree with them – are angered by proposals on issues that could be solved better at a local, regional or national level. My guess is that the next European Commission should, from a principled point of view, not think, “Is there a corner of Europe that we have not interfered with?” It should introduce a new philosophy by saying, “Let us start to discuss what we are doing here. Using the subsidiarity clause of the Lisbon Treaty, what could do be done at a local, regional or national level?” If we look to more subsidiarity and focus more on important items in Brussels and re-delegate things to a regional or national framework where they can be better solved there, I am sure we will see the yellow card procedure decrease in use.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Acketoft to put a question on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Being a warm believer in the importance of the European Union, I look upon the coming elections with great worry. Country by country, we are seeing the growth of anti-European parties, anti-democratic parties and xenophobic parties. If the polls are accurate, it is estimated that some 40% of the members of the European Parliament will be anti-European and anti-democratic. Do you have an action plan to meet that threat before the election? If that worst-case scenario comes true, how will the European Parliament’s work be affected?

      Mr SCHULZ – That is a difficult question, and I have to respect the time restrictions. Normally, I would answer that question with a speech, but I will try to be as brief as I can. Parliamentary democracy must accept the free vote of the electors and we have to live with extremist parties. We should ask why people vote for some of these parties. My feeling is that a lot of people who vote for such parties are not convinced by the parties’ programmes. Those votes are a signal to national institutions – the parties are often also represented in national institutions – and European institutions to wake up.

      One of the privileges of my two-year term as President of the European Parliament is that I meet a lot of people from all the member States of the European Union. The overwhelming majority of European Union citizens agree with the idea behind the European Union: countries co-operating across borders in institutions to strengthen each other and control each other, and to help each other on the basis of respect and solidarity. The idea that countries co-operate across borders – by that, I do not only mean physical borders, but cultural borders, economic borders and linguistic borders as well – is uncontested. More and more citizens, however, do not identify that idea with the European Union as it is, because they say that we are not strengthening, but weakening each other. They see unbalanced development in one part of the European Union and the revitalising of prejudices and stereotypes in another. We all thought that they had disappeared. My conclusion is that more social cohesion, more solidarity and the fight against youth unemployment are key.

      I am a post-war German; I was born in 1955. My parents were asked by the German Government to make sacrifices that we would never dare ask for today: longer working hours, lower pay and no holidays. They had to pay for my schooling. I have four siblings. My parents paid for their five children and had nothing for themselves. Why? They did that in answer to the Government’s request of “Do it, it is for the good of your children”, and it was demonstrably for the good of the children. I have had the privilege to live a life that my parents did not dare dream of. My generation, which is today in office in Europe and the member States of the European Union, is asking for sacrifices from parents, but for what? The sacrifices are to save banks, when their children have an unemployment rate of 50%. So I understand those who have doubts. The best way to regain trust is not just to mobilise €700 billion to stabilise the banks and the eurozone. We cannot just declare banks to be systemically relevant, because generations are systemically relevant, and we must visibly fight for them. That is the best solution to regain the trust of voters.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Papadimoulis to put a question on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – I have a straightforward question for the President. Are you for or against the policies of Angela Merkel’s Government? You have criticised her policies on unemployment and extreme austerity several times, along with all the efforts to reform the national configuration in Europe. Now, as President of the European Parliament, you are no longer criticising Merkel’s Government. Why is that? You were elected by the left, but you seem to be close to the Merkel Government. That is difficult to understand. Where is the balance? It gives me seasickness.

      Mr SCHULZ* – We were former colleagues in the European Parliament, and I was prepared for your question, so I am not all that surprised by it. You were kind enough to ask me this question last week, so I can repeat my answer, as a German citizen. A journalist asked me this question when I was applying for a job in the European Union. I was asked whether I had been given the support of Angela Merkel. I answered, “If Angela Merkel votes for the Social Democrats, I have her support. My feeling is that she will not vote for the Social Democrats.” I am not here as a representative of the German Government; I am here as the President of the European Parliament and I defend the position of the European Parliament. If you were to ask the question to me personally, then I would say that I do not agree with the decisions taken and proposals made by the German Government in a large number of areas, and I have stated that clearly in public. Germany has a new Government, as you know, Mr Papadimoulis.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We have finished the list of speakers for the different political groups. If we may, Mr President, we will take three questions in turn? I call Mr Mignon.

      Mr MIGNON (France)* – President Schulz – dear Martin, if you do not mind me calling you that; we are on familiar terms – as you know, one of my main priorities over the past two years has been to strengthen close relations with the European Union. Thanks to you, Elmar Brok, Štefan Füle, Josef Daul and others, we have achieved this goal. I also thank you for coming to address this Chamber, as you promised. Respecting one’s word is very important in politics, but unfortunately it is not always the case.

      My dear Martin, we have made headway on the European Union’s joining the European Convention on Human Rights. We need to continue this process. The European Union has dynamic policies on neighbourhood issues; please address these in close co-ordination with the Council of Europe.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – Herr Schulz, do you understand the desire of a great part of the British people and the British Government to have a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union? Will you in the European Parliament therefore facilitate renegotiation so we get a real result, or would you rather that the United Kingdom left the European Union?

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – The resolution of the European Parliament of 7 April 2011 on the change in the neighbourhood policy calls on European Union institutions to implement programmes that will re-establish confidence and build bridges to these societies. Up to now, European institutions have done nothing along these lines regarding the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you believe that talking to these people in unrecognised territories could really re-establish confidence?

      Mr SCHULZ* – In response to Mr Mignon, it is a little difficult for me to use the familiar form of “you” in this Chamber. Mr Papadimoulis would then go back to Greece and say, “Look, he’s already ‘pally’ with the French right!” I cannot do that; nevertheless, thank you very much for your question. I appreciate it.

      On the neighbourhood policy, as far as the European Union is concerned, who is our best possible partner? Obviously, it is you, and I could not agree more with what you just said. We are ideally suited partners.

      Madam President, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to extend thanks to and pay tribute to your predecessor, to everything he did and all the efforts he made to improve relations between the two institutions. As you heard, Mr Mignon used “tu” – he addressed me directly in the familiar form – and I think that shows what a good, sound relationship we have.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Let me answer Sir Edward Leigh in clear terms. I am often surprised when I hear this expression “relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union”. It sounds as if the European Union is a foreign force. You are a member of the European Union, and you are negotiating about the relationship with yourselves. This is wonderful, and I am strongly interested in seeing the result.

      You asked me about my view on the United Kingdom. Let me say in clear terms that I want to see the United Kingdom as a fully fledged member of the European Union, participating in all policies. That would strengthen the Union and would strengthen the United Kingdom.

      On the third question, I said to your fellow countryman Mr Clappison, “Yes, we should discuss the question of what we are doing in Brussels that does not need to be done there. What could be done better elsewhere?” I am strongly in favour – and, by the way, as a Member of the European Parliament I always raised my voice in favour of such a strategy. For 11 years I was mayor of a German city near Aachen with 40 000 inhabitants. My experience is that the nearer decision making is to the citizens, the better, and the higher the acceptance of it. On the other hand, it is clear that no country alone will be able to manage some of the challenges we face in the 21st century. So let us discuss this, but we do not need treaty changes. Let us discuss what, with the instruments of subsidiarity, is possible, and I am absolutely sure that we will find, if it is done constructively, not a common solution to our specific relationship, but a common solution to encourage the United Kingdom to play a more active role within the European Union.

      Let me give a simple example. We are negotiating the free trade agreement with the United States of America. Your third question was, what would happen if you left the Union? Then, you would not be a part of this new transatlantic trade dimension. This is not imaginable for us or for the citizens of the United Kingdom. So, stay in – it is better for both sides.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      Turning to the last question, it is the Minsk Group – I do apologise, I have forgotten the name of our colleague from Azerbaijan. “Armenia”, says Madam Brasseur. I was looking at the list and I got it wrong. I do apologise; I am terribly sorry. The question was on Nagorno-Karabakh, am I right?

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – There was a resolution of the European Parliament of April 2011 calling on the institutions of the European Union to implement programmes that would build confidence and build bridges with societies and peoples in unrecognised countries. Until now, the institutions have done nothing along those lines, and my question is about the non-implementation of this resolution.

      Mr SCHULZ* – I must admit that I am afraid I cannot answer this here and now. What I would say is that we really should leave this in the hands of the Minsk Group. I beg your indulgence, madam; I will have to find out more. I cannot answer the question now – I do not know all the Parliament’s resolutions by heart, I am afraid. I know that that makes me an imperfect President, but there are so many resolutions that we adopt, week in, week out, and I have to read them very carefully. I will answer you as soon as I have looked into the matter.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I suggest that President Schulz answer that question in writing. You will be given all the details, dear colleague, in a written reply from President Schulz.

      Let me come to the next three speakers. First, I call Ms Bulajić.

      Ms BULAJIĆ (Serbia) – Mr President, in welcoming you to the Council of Europe, I will necessarily go back to the democratic deficit issue. Given the upcoming parliamentary elections, it is inconceivable that politicians will begin their election campaigns without sketching out a vision for the future of Europe. In my opinion, beyond the Europe of necessity there must be a Europe of liberty. Do you agree? I am really interested in your view on the future architecture of Europe and who will be the main actors. Is there a place for new members?

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Migrants are a benefit to European host societies, but the worrying side-effect is social dumping. Lately, this has escalated through the activities of some European low-price aviation companies. The Norwegian Minister for Transport has sent a letter to the European Union outlining proposals for common action. On 11 February, there will be a hearing in Brussels on this issue. Would you look positively on closer European co-operation to fight social dumping through international aviation?

      Mr SZABÓ (Hungary)* – In your address, President Schulz, you touched on an issue that I wanted to raise. How will it be possible to have a strongly functioning mechanism between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, and how can we develop this mechanism with a view to defending fundamental human rights and the rule of law, with emphasis being placed on countries that are European Union members?

      Mr SCHULZ – Ms Bulajić, it is very difficult for me to do what you asked of me – to give a vision for the future of the European Union – in 30 seconds or one minute. One element of your question is the structure of the European Union. I avoid the term, “European perspective”, because it is, in my eyes, very un-concrete. When people say that they should have a European perspective, I ask them what it means. Should they walk up a mountain and look at Europe so that they have a European perspective? Sooner or later, the former member States of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – today we call them the western Balkan countries – plus their neighbours should have access to the European Union. That depends on their capacity to absorb the acquis communautaire and their economic development. Perhaps there is a long way to go, but I am sure that the future structure of the European Union will include those countries.

      In response to the question about social dumping and migrants, free movement is a fundamental right, but it should be a privilege and not a duty in order to survive. The best guarantee of it – this is my personal view – is equal pay. We will not have a common minimum salary on the same level in all member States, but we should take into account the very specific economic situations of the different member States of the European Union to guarantee a minimum salary – not the same minimum salary – in all member States. That is one of the best instruments to avoid people having to leave their country because they cannot survive on the salary they get there. This kind of free movement is opening all the doors to social dumping, whether it happens in the air transport system, in the ground services, or wherever. The best way to prevent social dumping is to provide decent salaries and a minimum salary in specific member States. To avoid any misunderstanding, I repeat that we should not have the same minimum salary in all member States but a minimum salary in all member States within the frame of the GDP development of the respective countries.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      Dear colleague Szabó, you are another colleague I have known for quite some time; we have worked together in several forums. The comments I made in my address are very much geared towards this. We cannot demand very strong criteria for candidates to join the European Union and yet at the same time not expect the same criteria of members of the European Union. That is why I said that the protection of fundamental rights applies both within and outside the European Union. The important thing is to develop a joint monitoring forum. Of course, when the European Union joins the European Convention on Human Rights, that will provide one way of doing so, and co-operation can be more strongly developed. I hope that we can continue to talk about deepening co-operation after the European Union joins the Convention.

      The PRESIDENT* – I propose that we take three more questions, even if we go over time, if the president agrees.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Africa will probably be the great continent of the 21st century. Two billion people live there, and it lies just on the other side of the Mediterranean. Has Europe taken the measure of the great North-South dialogue that is coming, and are we concerned about instability in Africa?

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – in view of the linkage of the activities of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights with the parliaments of European countries, I address you with this question. Certain observers note that the office is benefited much more as a pressure mechanism against States than for the domination of democratic values, thus fulfilling the tasks of the CIA. I would like to know your attitude towards the possibility of conducting a special parliamentary investigation to enable the European Parliament, one of the most respected global organisations, to shed light on this issue.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – Mr President, thank you very much for your principled position on stopping government violence against protesters. But perhaps you know that a lot of the “stop dictatorship” laws are still not signed by President Yanukovych. We still do not have a law about amnesty because they want an amnesty for those who killed people and who punished journalists. For us, this is very important. Perhaps it is time to act like the Canadian Government and Parliament to stop visas for those who violate the rules and main principles of the Council of Europe, and to stop this dirty blood business for those who have business in the European Union, as well as in other countries, including Georgia.

      Mr SCHULZ* – Ms Durrieu, thank you very much for your question about Africa. Rest assured that the European Parliament takes Africa and relations with Africa very seriously indeed. We are not just interested in certain parts of the continent; relations with all regions in Africa are frequently debated in a profound and deep manner. As President of the European Parliament, I addressed the pan-African parliament last year. As the European Parliament, we have close inter-parliamentary relations with the parliaments of many African countries, but that does not mean that the European Union is paying enough attention to relations with the African continent as a whole. Through my experience as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean in 2012-13, I really got a sense of how much can be gained through relations between us and Africa – for instance, through the Union for the Mediterranean. If we take a realistic view of what is happening in the Arab world and in northern Africa, we see that there is an extraordinary process of transformation that has not yet finished.

      What do these States need first and foremost? They need renewal of their infrastructure, sustainable health care, sustainable agriculture, and a trading infrastructure with good rail links and air links. Sustainable development will also depend on good water distribution. That is a huge problem in Egypt. So there is tremendous investment potential. Who can go there and provide our partners in Africa with the knowledge, capacity and expertise they need in order to ensure sustainable development? It is the member States of the European Union and elsewhere in the Mediterranean. The Union for the Mediterranean is a huge opportunity for both Europe and Africa. It is being underestimated and I hope that will change in the foreseeable future.

      On the issue of Azerbaijan, I have been given a note by my colleague but I really cannot read what he has written. While he is writing it again in a way that is legible, I will answer Mr Sobolev’s question.

      The amnesty law is being prepared. In fact, in the past few hours we have received information that an amnesty law is being drafted. Of course, this has to do with the occupied buildings. The condition is that occupied buildings must be vacated. I apologise, I cannot say much more than that. I cannot say exactly how far we have got with this but an amnesty law is required – I will certainly say that. We want to ensure that we have no violence and if you want no violence you have to ensure that both sides do not get embroiled in further recriminations. They need to make peace and an amnesty law would help with that. It would be a starting point for a constructive dialogue.

      What contribution can I make to this situation? I will do whatever I can. As I am sure you are aware, over the past 18 months I have been encouraging a dialogue with the different sides in Ukrainian politics. I have had intense contact with the president, in particular. If at all possible, I will do whatever I can now as well. I will do whatever is within my capacity and my remit to help out. I will do what I can to contribute to the dialogue that needs to take place. But I will be frank with you as well: this is feasible within the bounds of what is possible. You referred to the Orange Revolution. We were very fortunate that Javier Solana was our High Representative at the time. He and the Polish President, Mr Kwaśniewski, were both in the country and they were able to contribute to the dialogue structure. That was very helpful because that ultimately led to a solution. Perhaps we could set up a similar model if it were premised on good will on all sides.

      I can now finally read the handwriting of my staff member and answer Mr Huseynov’s question about electoral observation missions. Basically, we apply the same criteria – western criteria, if I may call them that, those of international organisations and institutions – not the criteria of the CIA, let me be quite clear about that. The OSCE has rules and we in the European Parliament have much greater respect for them than those of the NSA, I can tell you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I thank you on behalf of everyone for your speech and for replying to all our questions. Thank you very much. You will always be welcome in this Assembly. You deserve all this applause.

4. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting at 3.30 p.m., with the agenda that was approved for this part-session.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Appointment of committees

2.” Internet and Politics: the Impact of New Information and Communication Technology on Democracy”

Presentation by Ms Guţu of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13386

Presentation by Mr Franken of the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13399

Speakers: Ms Hovhannisyan, Mr Shlegel, Mr Leyden, Mr Valen, Mr Le Borgn, Mr Recordon, Ms Schneider-Schneiter, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Comte, Ms Faber-van de Klashorst, Ms Ms Vučković, Mr Mihalovics, Mr Koszorus, Ms Gafarova, Ms Bulajić, Mr Schennach, Mr Bojanic, Mr Rivard, Ms Mattila, Mr Sasi, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Huseynov, Mr Connarty, Mr Ivanovski,Ms Hovhannisyan, Mr Nicolaides, Mr Taliadouros

Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13386, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13386 adopted

3. Address by Mr Martin Schultz, President of the European Parliament

Questions: Mr Corsini, Mr Agramunt, Mr Clappison, Ms Acketoft, Mr Papadimoulis, Mr Mignon, Sir Edward Leigh, Ms Zohrabyan, Ms Bulajić, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Szabó, Ms Durrieu, Mr Huseynov, Mr Sobolev

4. Next public business

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/Brigitte Allain

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Fatiha Saïdi

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI/Milena Santerini

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI/Khalid Chaouki

Márton BRAUN

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Elena CENTEMERO/Giuseppe Galati

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO

Jonny CROSIO

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/Fatma Pehlivan

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN/Michael Connarty

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß/Josip Juratovic

Daphné DUMERY/Sabine Vermeulen

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE/Robert Neill

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV/Alexander Sidyakin

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO/Christian Barilaro

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/Sir Edward Leigh

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Alexander Romanovich

Sandro GOZI

Fred de GRAAF*

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER/Péter Mihalovics

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS/László Koszorús

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Pedro Azpiazu

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI/Elżbieta Radziszewska

Hamid HAMID

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Naira Karapetyan

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Olga Kazakova

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara

Michael Aastrup JENSEN/Sophie Løhde

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA/Valeri Jablianov

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON/Tina Acketoft

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Zbigniew Girzyński

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Anvar Makhmutov

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Aleksandrs Sakovskis

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES/Nicos Nicolaides

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Ana Birchall

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Robert Shlegel

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE/Carmen Quintanilla

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU/Jenny Klinge

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO

Mark VERHEIJEN/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Jaana Pelkonen

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD*

Gisela WURM*

Jordi XUCLÀ

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/ Iva Dimic

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Petras Gražulis

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Vassiliy Likhachev

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Vahe Hovhannisyan

Vacant Seat, Croatia / Ivan Račan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Kerstin LUNDGREN

André REICHARDT

Observers

Stella AMBLER

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

M. Michel RIVARD

Jorge Iván VILLALOBOS SEÁÑEZ

Partners for Democracy

Azzam AL-AHMAD

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

M. Abdelkebir BERKIA

M. El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

M. Omar HEJIRA

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA

Mr Bassam SALHI

Mohamed YATIM