AA16CR16

AS (2016) CR 16

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Sixteenth sitting

Thursday 21 April 2016 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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

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

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

(Ms Palihovici, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

      Dear colleagues, I am pleased to inform you that, in view of the number of speakers in this afternoon’s debate, the speaking time will be increased to four minutes.

1. Debate: Assessing the impact of measures to improve women’s political representation

      The PRESIDENT – We come now to the debate on the report entitled “Assessing the impact of measures to improve women’s political representation”, Document 14011. I am pleased to welcome to the Chamber Ms Maria Elena Boschi, the Italian Minister of Constitutional Reforms and Relations with Parliament.

      Dear minister, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to this Assembly, which brings together members of parliament from all over Europe and beyond to support human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      Since her appointment as Minister for Constitutional Reforms and Relations with Parliament in 2014, Ms Boschi has taken significant steps on the path of institutional renewal in Italy, including the promotion of a new electoral law which ensures greater gender equality in elections.

      Minister, thank you again for being with us today. I am sure that your presentation will be a valuable contribution to our discussion.

      The debate on the report entitled “Assessing the impact of measures to improve women’s political representation”, Document 14011, will be presented by Ms Elena Centemero on behalf of the Equality Committee, with a statement by Ms Maria Boschi, the Italian Minister of Constitutional Reforms and Relations with Parliament.

      I remind you that speaking time in this morning’s debate is limited to three minutes.

      In order to finish this debate by 12 noon, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.25 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Ms Elena Centemero, rapporteur of the Equality Committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – The political representation of women in parliaments and elected bodies is still at a very low level, even in Europe in 2016. Last year, when I had just started preparing the report, there was much lively debate in committee discussions and the idea emerged of doing something fairly straightforward: comparing the percentage of women elected to parliaments of member States of the Council of Europe in 2005 and some 10 years later in 2015. Two things emerged. The percentage of women elected to parliaments has increased but, at the same time, it is very limited indeed, going from 18% to 25%. The figures are not satisfactory. In fact, they are unacceptable. The Venice Commission, in its guidelines on the regulations governing political parties, has said, “The small number of women in politics remains a critical issue which undermines the full functioning of democratic processes.”

      The aim of the report we are discussing was to examine the representation and participation of women in political and institutional life from a global perspective, taking a holistic and innovative standpoint. The Council of Europe is an international body that includes 47 member States, whose levels of female participation in democratic life vary widely. It is for that reason that we need to work together and ensure that we can implement one of the fundamental pillars of our existence – gender equality. I have learnt from the Swedish Parliament that gender equality means the possibility for men and women to participate in a balanced way to change and modify the political, social and cultural lives of their countries.

      In the light of the report, we must ask ourselves how long it will take to arrive at balanced political representation for both men and women. If a balanced, fair representation of men and women is absent, can we really talk about representative democracy? That is a question we must ask ourselves. What instruments will prove most effective in increasing the political representation of women to arrive at the balanced representation I mentioned? Various instruments are available to us, as I have seen for myself when visiting various countries. Some countries have compulsory quotas for electoral lists and some have the double gender preference. In other countries, parties have decided to introduce a quota system. These measures may be compulsory or just temporary. Like many women involved in politics, I was very suspicious of the quota system. I thought it might undermine the credibility of women in parliament. However, my personal experience in politics and my studies in the University of Milan under Professor Marilisa D’Amico – I take this opportunity to thank her – have given me the technical and scientific tools to examine the issue of parity and to understand the infinite range of obstacles that stand in the way of women’s full participation in politics. These are obstacles that women also encounter in the world of work and in the workplace. We have learnt that women have to fight to get their foot in the door with regard to decision making, so that all their talents and abilities are able to come to the fore. There are so many factors – political, social and economic; the media also have a role to play – to the many obstacles that get in the way.

      We have to be able to reconcile political life with family life. It is here that constitutions and electoral laws can really make a difference. We will be hearing from Minister Maria Elena Boschi in a few moments. She is responsible for constitutional reform in the Italian Republic. Electoral law reforms were approved last week in the Italian Parliament. I myself participated in framing the legislation. Thanks to the quota system, gender equality in political representation in Italy has increased considerably, particularly at local level in municipal administrations and even in some regional administrations. Women have now achieved 30% representation. That is not enough, of course, but the new electoral laws will make it possible to increase the presence of women in parliament and in the regions.

      I am proud to have been able to contribute to this process through my activities in the Council of Europe. The measures to increase the political representation of women have met some resistance in the most traditional sectors and male bastions in our parliaments, but there are so many women who deserve to participate more in political institutional life. Quotas, of whatever nature, make it possible for their talents and abilities to fully come to the fore. The resolution we are discussing today talks about different forms of electoral quotas. We need electoral quotas. They have been adopted in a number of countries. They are useful and I think they have proved their worth. However, I think they are useful only if they are applied correctly, go hand in hand with tough sanctions and lay down an ambitious minimum threshold. In other words, there is no point expecting any revolutionary changes if we have a threshold for women’s representation in parliament of only 20%.

      We are here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe talking about an issue that is so important to our democracies. The Council of Europe has always supported the idea of quotas and they are an important measure, but the application of quotas should be time limited. In the text, I propose that we think about the longer term. We need 360 degree vision, but we need to pitch our efforts to the longer term. When quota systems have proved their worth they can be put to one side, but only when we are sure that there will be no backtracking from what we have achieved.

      I appeal to you to support the draft resolution today so that quota systems are implemented, irrespective of their nature, and talented women have the opportunity to participate in the economic, social and political institutional lives of the societies in which they live. Balanced representation between men and women is necessary both in our national parliaments and at a local level.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Centemero. You have six minutes remaining. Ms Boschi, you have the floor.

      Ms BOSCHI (Minister of Constitutional Reforms and Relations with the Parliament of Italy)* – Thank you, Madam President. I thank Ms Centemero and all members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in such a prestigious forum. The Council of Europe is the home of human rights and a beacon of long-standing and consolidated democracy on our continent, so I am particularly pleased to be able to speak here.

      Our institutional reforms of the past few years have been made with a view to enhancing the participation of women so that we can strike a better gender balance and greater democratic participation. This year has a particular significance for my own country of Italy because we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of women being given the vote for the first time. It is important not only to be able to vote, but for women to be elected to various democratic forums. In recent years, we have embarked on wide-ranging constitutional reforms of whole sectors of public administration, including in the field of justice, the labour market and the fiscal area. In particular, we are engaged in root and branch reform of our institutional architecture, starting with the constitution.

      Following a two-year process, the Italian Parliament last week adopted electoral legislation that will be put to citizens in a referendum in the autumn. The reforms aim to ensure greater gender balance in the participation of the democratic institutions in Italy. The constitution serves as the basis for all other political choices, so the reforms that are being advocated have a particular significance. The commitment of the government and parliament when it comes to legislative proposals has been considerable. The reforms relate to the regulations governing political parties and electoral legislation. This commitment has been entered into fully by the government, a commitment symbolised by the composition of perfect parity between men and women within the government – an important symbolic example of some inroads we have made on female participation.

      We have done away with direct public funding to political parties. This goes hand in hand with economic sanctions. The inner structure and statutes of political parties are established under private law in the Italian Republic. Parties will be sanctioned if they do not enable women to participate fully in the life of the political party. We are talking about earmarking resources to ensure fuller participation of women in parliaments, including the European Parliament. There could be sanctions when there is under-representation to the tune of 40% of one gender as compared with the other.

      In Italy, we have adopted rules that will encourage women’s participation. Of course there is no guarantee – all this depends on achieving a consensus in society and the choices of individual citizens – but we must ensure that political parties field more female candidates, by obliging parties to have alternating male and female candidates on their lists to provide a 50:50 split between the genders. It is possible to express a preference: if two preference votes are cast, the second must be for the other gender, thus ensuring balanced participation.

      We have a mixed mechanism whereby the heads of party lists are elected automatically if the party passes the threshold for access to parliament, but one gender cannot exceed 60% when compared with the other. We have entered into certain commitments under our electoral legislation governing the role of political parties. For the first time, the legislation that governs regional councils contains an obligation to ensure gender balance, although the mechanisms differ at the regional level because the regions can choose to have an electoral system with single candidates or party lists.

      We are also seeking to increase women’s participation at the level of municipal councils. In municipalities with more than 3 000 inhabitants, men and women must participate equally in the council. We are trying to overcome any form of discrimination in ensuring women’s representation in municipal councils. In 2014, the government adopted electoral legislation that makes it possible to express a preference when voting, to ensure that there is better representation of women. We hope that such a system will take effect at the next elections, when we must ensure that the preference votes alternate between men and women.

      In the electoral systems at all levels of public administration – in regional and municipal councils, as well as in the European Parliament – we are pushing for greater female participation. Of course these efforts have not been straightforward, and I should like to thank Ms Centemero for what she has done. We have more than 30% female representation in the Italian Parliament, but some of the provisions that I have mentioned use secret ballots, and I need not tell you how difficult it is to gain sufficient support in secret ballots.

      It is therefore important that we seek to create a consensus and gain the necessary backing for our reforms by working with opposition parties. I say that because the presence of women in our institutions is not of secondary importance in the choices that those institutions make. The presence of women has value in itself, because it is part and parcel of democracy. We are talking not about sectoral demands but about something that is in the interests of society as a whole. Better representation of women will ensure that our governments and our parliaments make more balanced decisions, with greater attention paid to issues such as the work-life balance or how we change welfare systems to take greater account of women’s needs. All these things will become possible when we have greater female participation and representation in our parliaments.

      Although attitudes differ in various countries, it is important to enhance female participation. The proposals we advocate and the choices we make are important because they relate to the democratic functioning of our institutions, but all this will have a knock-effect on our policies in the years to come. We are very much on the move, but we need to engage men and women and take the path towards greater female participation together. A lot of men are very sensitive to the issue and are attempting to work with women, to improve female participation. Fortunately, we can say that that has been done to a very large extent in Italy.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Ms Boschi, for your interesting presentation. We now come to the list of speakers.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – Today, we are talking about equality, but there is still a lot to be done in political life to achieve it. Europe was a pioneer in women’s rights and universal suffrage. Indeed, Finland is marking the 110th anniversary of universal suffrage. Regrettably, this is evolving at different speeds. In some countries, there is no correlation between the population of women and those who represent them in parliament.

      When we look at the women in politics, we see that women and men experience different difficulties. The difficulties faced by women in entering politics relate to family life and are social and educational in nature. However, the difficulties faced by men are very different; they may be financial or a lack of support among the electorate. When we talk about equality, we need to talk about economic independence and the need to overcome the wage gap. The number of women in political life has doubled over the past decade, but it is still only 22% in Europe, so a great deal obviously remains to be done.

      I express my gratitude to the trail-blazing women who have entered politics and because of whom life for me is a little easier today. The report says that quotas are essential tools. I agree that quotas can help us to enter political life, but they will not solve the ultimate problem, which is the need to overcome the deterrents in social life and to tackle them as a priority. Quotas are important in these developments, but if we talk about equality, we really need to talk about gender-neutral policies that allow women to gain access to political life according to their abilities and not their gender. We need maternity and paternity leave. We need to consider the timetabling of work in parliament. We also need to consider the problem of falling birth rates.

      You will see men being interviewed about their views on the future of family life, but they will not be on the same wavelength as women. We are moving at different speeds. We are committed to making real progress and quotas are important, but when we talk about equality, above all, we must consider gender-neutral approaches; we should not just impose measures on each other.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – I would like to thank Ms Centemero for her report. Throughout history, women have played a key role in social life. However, numerically they have been under-represented in the political arena. This report will hopefully increase awareness of that issue and trigger change.

      Forty-nine per cent of the Turkish population are women, and ratios in European countries range from 49% to 51%. The right to suffrage is key. Turkey offered its women the right to suffrage before France, Italy or Switzerland. In 1930, women were granted the right to be elected to local administrations, and in December 1934, they were granted the right to become parliamentarians. According to United Nations data from February 2016, Sweden is ranked fifth in the world for the representation of women. Finland is ranked tenth, and other countries have different rates. However, in Turkey the representation of women was only 4%. That figure increased to 14.9% in the 2016 elections. We agree with the criticism in the report and feel that that rate is far from sufficient. Prime Minister Davutoğlu has provided concrete examples of how to increase women’s representation in political life, with an aim of at least 25%.

      Women who deserve to be in certain positions need to be in those positions in not only political but social life. I would like to give the example of the AKP Party. Turkey is a democratic, secular and mostly Muslim country. It sets an example to many countries in the region and around the world. What makes the AKP strong is the strength of its women’s organisations. The AK Parti or AKP has 10 million members, approximately 4 million of whom are women. That makes the party one of the largest women’s political movements in the world. President Erdoğan has always put a lot of emphasis on women’s organisations within the political party. The Turkish Grand National Assembly set up a commission in 2009 that aimed to ensure gender equality. The commission examines and monitors gender equality practices. It is also responsible for monitoring any violations of gender equality and examining applications pertaining to violence against women.

      Women are becoming more and more interested in political life. However, they are under-represented in the top echelons of politics. If there were no obstacles for women, they would always hold the positions that they deserve. Women do not need positive discrimination; they simply need the barriers they face to be removed. It is important to acknowledge the qualitative and quantitative contributions that women make to political and social life. Women have a special place in social life and can sometimes do work that would normally be done by five men.

      Mr VALEN (Norway, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – In one third of the Council of Europe’s member States, the share of women in parliament is less than 20%. It is impossible to talk about equal societies when political power is so skewed to the benefit of men. To achieve true equality, we need to do much more than simply remove formal hindrances and restrictions that apply to women only – that is only half the job. As long as social, economic and political power is unevenly distributed, the differences will translate into male-dominated parliaments. That applies to this day, more or less, to all Council of Europe member States, including my own parliament, which is heavily male dominated.

      More than 100 years after women fought to gain the right to vote in my country, women are still under-represented in almost every elected body. There cannot be any equality between genders in political representation unless mechanisms are put in place to ensure it. First and foremost, women must be given the same real opportunities in life as men. The right to vote or to participate in public office makes less of a difference if your opportunities in life are limited owing to cultural or economic hindrances.

      Secondly, the parties that nominate politicians carry a big responsibility. Many political parties have strict rules in place to ensure equal representation as a minimum. We know that it works, and I wholeheartedly recommend it. Thirdly, female politicians in many countries are met with a barrage of hateful language and threats on the Internet and in social media. The way in which many female politicians are treated by the public is, in itself, a threat to freedom of expression, with its chilling effects spreading to all those who want to be heard but are afraid to speak up because they are worried about the abuse they will face.

      Lastly, if the under-representation of women persists in member States – most facts point towards exactly that – we must implement legislation that ensures equal representation. On that, I respectfully disagree with the previous speaker from Turkey. I think “quota” is a beautiful word. It does not express the exclusion of qualified men. On the contrary, it ensures that men and women have the same real opportunities in representation. The question is whether we are willing actually to ensure that equality, but the answer is not clear at a time when champions of equality are on the defensive in many countries, including in Council of Europe member States.

      The equality that Europeans are so proud of is not a given, and it is not timeless. The best way to ensure it is to keep pushing back against the reactionary and conservative forces that are on the rise in not only other parts of the world but here in Europe as well.

      Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – I would like to thank our rapporteur, Ms Centemero, because she has produced a report that is based on the reality for women; that reality is one of inequality. The report also looks at the pledge to ensure that women are properly represented in the Council of Europe.

      The leading countries on women’s political representation are France, Italy, Portugal and my own country, Spain, where women are represented to the tune of 40% in the parliamentary assembly. On 20 December last year, Spain agreed to 240 women being seated in the Spanish Parliament, which means that women are visible in political and legislative debates as they are in France, Italy and Portugal. Moreover, that visibility affords us an opportunity to keep permanent contact and dialogue with other women who want to be present in our countries’ political, social, economic and cultural lives.

      Women’s participation means the participation of 50% of society. It allows us to strengthen our democracies and to give a voice to women of the Council of Europe. Ms Centemero makes an appeal to not only parliaments of Council of Europe member States but men and women represented in this Parliamentary Assembly to ensure that more and more women are represented in member State parliaments, and therefore in political, constitutional and legislative debates and in debates on the electoral regime.

      Progress has been slow and uneven. The Fourth World Conference on Women said that by 2050, women will be fully represented. Today, 20 years after the Beijing women’s conference, women have only 22% representation in the world’s parliaments. We need to endorse and take on board the United Nations 50:50 commitment. That proportion will mean more women’s participation and more social justice. It will mean that equality is not just a value but a right.

      On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I congratulate Ms Centemero.

      Ms DE SUTTER (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – On behalf of the whole Socialist Group, and specifically its women’s working group, I congratulate Ms Centemero on tackling this important issue. In many countries, people tend to believe that women’s political representation can be taken for granted, but even if the overall level of women’s political representation is on the rise, it is also going down in many countries.

      How can we achieve better women’s representation in our parliaments? As Ms Centemero states, we know that gender quotas for parliamentary elections are effective positive measures, but perhaps that is so only in those countries that need quotas, and only if they are binding. Not every country needs gender quotas to achieve better women’s representation. Sweden, for example, believes that the political parties should apply an equal share of women and men on party lists because that would be more sustainable. Unfortunately, not all parties are as progressive as others when it comes to the equal representation of women and men.

      There are many different systems. In my country, we have an equal share on party lists. We could also have minimum percentages of 30% or 40%, or we could have parity among the overall number of party candidates, which is the situation in France. Every country should follow the system that fits best. That might mean having binding gender quotas if the culture of the country requires it. Ultimately, we should have 50:50 representation of women and men – parity should be the ultimate goal. Let us not forget that gender equality is important not only for political representation, but for all domains of society. It has to be culturally embedded. If that happens, it will be reflected in politics.

      Besides adopting a binding system resulting in equal representation, many more actions could be taken, but they are perhaps not elaborated on in the report. I make two suggestions. First, countries should introduce a gender equality perspective in all areas of society and analyse policies and budgets by screening the impact on women and men – that is called gender mainstreaming. Secondly, member States can promote gender equality through their foreign policies. Gender equality diplomacy should be a part of development co-operation.

      Finally, I remind colleagues that democracy means more than people picking their favourite politician every so many years: democracy is an active and ongoing process. Therefore, women’s participation in elections is at least as important as women’s political representation. Positive actions that encourage women to vote can make a difference. A democracy that works well is the best guarantee of women’s political representation. If we encourage women to vote, more women will be voted into Parliament. Let us not forget that we should never take the rights we have obtained for granted.

      I have heard a plea from some people for gender neutrality. I fully understand where it comes from, but gender neutrality is the further stage beyond gender equality. In countries that have not yet obtained gender equality, it may be too early to talk about gender neutrality.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – Madam President and colleagues, did you know that when Switzerland joined the Council of Europe in 1963, it did not yet have voting rights for women at national level? My country was allowed to join the Council of Europe even though a central component of democracy – equal political rights for men and women – was not guaranteed. Only in 1971, 45 years ago, were women in Switzerland given the rights that women in other countries already enjoyed. Countries that were criticised for their records on democratic rights were decades ahead of us on women’s political rights.

      What is the latest situation in Switzerland? In the two chambers of the Swiss Parliament, women account for 32% and 15% respectively. Sadly, things are stagnating. What prevents women in Switzerland from taking up political office? It is hardly for religious or cultural reasons. In the recently held elections at municipal and cantonal level, and at federal level, I attempted to convince scores of women to put themselves forward as candidates – competent and successful women from all different walks of life, single women, women with grown-up children, working women and others. We wanted women on our lists, but finding them was not all that easy. They gave a plethora of reasons why they did not want to put themselves forward. For example, the double burden of professional and family life makes it difficult for women to find time for political commitment. Women are also afraid of direct confrontation and do not want to expose themselves to it. They are not drawn to power. They often play an active role in associations and clubs, and a lot of them do not have time to commit to additional voluntary work. Many meetings are held in the evening, so there is a problem with childcare. Women are also perfectionists – they want to carry out their tasks 100%, so politics does not interest them.

      Looking for women who want to go into politics is a sobering experience. We may assume that we have the right conditions in Switzerland to get women into politics, but we need to find women who want to put themselves forward. A quota system is not the most expedient system in every country. Electing women on the basis of quotas does not reflect their qualifications and competencies. The resolution is definitely a step in the right direction. Women are needed in politics not because they are better than men, but because they are different. They complement men and strengthen the balance. That should be clear not only to men, but to women, as this is also about solidarity among women. If women vote for women, we will have made progress.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – I, too, applaud Ms Centemero’s work. She shows us that we must always remain vigilant on women’s political representation.

      I would like to recall the great leading role played by Europe. The Council of Europe held its seminar on gender parity in 1989. In 1992 in Athens, we had the first European summit, which brought together women ministers. The summit adopted a charter referring to the fact that democracy required gender parity in the governance of our countries. In France, women relaunched the discussion of gender parity, and 10 women representing the whole political spectrum got together and produced a manifesto. They included Catherine Lalumière, who is well known in the Assembly – she was the first French Minister for Women’s Rights in 1981. All of that led to the adoption of legislation on parity in politics in 1999 and 2000. As a result, a quota system was established and the number of women elected to political roles increased.

      However, the effectiveness of all this is determined by several things, including the way in which votes are conducted. More women are elected under proportional representation than under first past the post. Penalties for parties that do not respect quotas are frequently minimal and that does not encourage them to do much. We also note that, generally, women are given the constituencies that are the most difficult for them to win. Clearly, that does not increase the number of elected women. Of course, everyone knows that women have to earn their spurs and prove their worth. We must therefore recognise that, despite the failings of quotas and the fact that they are not a cure-all, they are necessary because we still have to work hard to erase an age-old view of the role of women in our societies.

      Education is crucial. Women must understand that they have the ability to act as political representatives and that thereby they can promote gender equality. Indeed, the young generation of male politicians in France has a different attitude to their female counterparts from that of the past. However, civil society needs to be more involved in the issue and the media must be readier to denounce sexist behaviour. I say to our male colleagues that surely it is high time for change.

      Ms STEFANELLI (San Marino)* – I congratulate Ms Centemero on the excellent report that she presented and I thank Ms Boschi for her important contribution to our work.

      Today, we are called upon to assess the effectiveness that various international instruments advocate to ensure enhanced female participation in elected assemblies, parliaments and national governments. There is no denying that some progress has been made. However, the report’s basic premise leaves no doubt that women are currently under-represented in political life in most Council of Europe member States. The report makes it clear that in 27 of the 47 member States, women’s representation in the national parliaments is below the 25% mark. My country, the Republic of San Marino, is unfortunately among them, despite the fact that in 2007, we introduced a rule in electoral law whereby lists of candidates cannot contain more than two thirds of candidates of the same gender, otherwise the list might be barred. The level of women’s participation is low despite the fact that our electoral system is based on proportional representation, with the possibility of expressing as many as three preference votes.

      Quotas are one of the most useful measures for guaranteeing balanced gender participation. Generally, I am not much in favour of quotas for women because I believe that it is better for women to stand out for their abilities, competency and the support that they enjoy from society. Yet there is no denying the fact that women are not adequately represented and that they have more difficulties than men in gaining political office, for various social, economic and other reasons, which stand in the way of gender equality. Quotas should not only be provided for but beefed up to ensure that we achieve gender equality. Men and women need to be represented equally in political life.

      As well as the positive measures that have been described, we need to take accompanying measures. The report refers to some of them, and among those listed I believe that encouraging horizontal networks of women parliamentarians is extraordinarily important.

      I would like to highlight the important point in the report about gender pairing. There is no doubt that full implementation of the principle of gender parity depends on an evolving cultural mindset, shored up by appropriate laws and policies. There is also no doubt that political parties hold the political power and can choose their representatives. They therefore need to set an example in disseminating a culture of gender parity and providing for gender pairing in their internal party statutes so that women are better represented, including within internal party structures.

      The participation of both genders in all aspects of political and institutional life in a country can only be positive and promote better and more balanced solutions to the problems that we are all trying to address. It is not only that women need institutions; institutions need women.

      Ms MIKKO (Estonia) – One of the indicators of the strength of democracy is women’s participation in politics and governing the State. The more women there are making decisions in society, the more democratic the State is. I refer to the Nordic countries in Europe when I say that, in all these countries, the representation of women in parliament and government is considerable, around 40%. Whatever ranking of gender equality is used, these countries are always in the top 10.

      Elena Centemero’s report mentions quotas. Only five years ago, the topic of quotas was almost demonised in my home country, Estonia. Our male politicians emphasised evolution and the will of the voters. The situation has changed a bit today – we social democrats established a voluntary quota in our party. A few parties followed our example, with the result that we have more women in parliament than ever – 27%.

      In my opinion the most important sentence of the report is that “contrary to what is commonly believed, generally speaking it is not the voter, but the political parties that decide who gets elected.” That is the key. Now, the question is how difficult it is to open that locked door between a male-dominated world and a world equally governed by men and women. The door opens easily, if we accept that "this world, where only men govern, is stuffy and needs fresh air.”

      Women are willing to take responsibility but political will is needed for this. I am reminded of a good role model, Belgium, where a generation ago, the so-called zebra system was legalised. In the list of parties, women alternate with men. In a short time, Belgium thus achieved similar representation of women as the Scandinavian parliaments.

      I fully agree with the rapporteur that several countries show that to be effective quotas should be ambitious. Council of Europe member States should consider introducing the principle of parity in their legislation. That requires strong political will and a wide consensus as it may have important implications. That would represent an effective foundation for gender-equal democracy.

      I say “Europe”, but mean “democracy” – men and women sharing equal government responsibility. If we really wish for that, we should create it here and now. It is as simple as this: half of earth, half of heaven, half of power.

      I agree with the rapporteur and the report. It is necessary, indeed essential, to introduce gender quotas.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Sotnyk and Ms Gerashchenko are not here, so I call Ms Yaşar.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – I congratulate Ms Centemero on this realistic report.

      I want to refer to the good example of the women’s organisation in the Justice and Development party. It was established in 2001 and I am one of the founding members. Following the establishment of the AK Parti, women’s organisations have also been established. It aims to remove all the barriers to women’s participation in politics. In rural areas women have more difficulty in participating in political life because families do not approve. To overcome these difficulties in a patriarchal country, it is important to encourage women to participate in politics.

      The women’s organisation in AKP consists of women who serve as a platform to teach politics to women. Its membership is more than 4 million. It is the biggest women’s organisation in the world. Although there is no provision in electoral law that forces political parties to have women’s organisations, thanks to the vision of the founder of AKP, Mr Erdoğan, we have women’s organisations, and women were the most important architects of the 49.5% of the vote that we received. You can learn politics in a political party so it is important to have more women in political parties to ensure that they learn politics. The women’s organisation in AKP is a kind of school. We have organisations in 81 provinces and 957 districts. Women are elected by the votes of the delegates. We have a board of 50 people and 12 members make up the executive committee. I congratulate our women’s organisation on its contribution to politics.

      Of course, it is not possible to change the mentality that is dominant in politics but it is possible to give guidance. Women are encouraged to participate in elections. In 2002 the women’s representation rate was 4.4%. Today we have 81 women members of parliament and the representation rate is 14.73%. Frankly, this is not a very high percentage but it is obvious that the women’s representation rate is increasing. Therefore, I believe this is an important example.

      Mr NEGUTA (Republic of Moldova)* – It is an honour for me to be here today to speak on this important issue. This may actually be the most important issue being discussed at this part-session. I am delighted to see Ms Palihovici, the Vice-President of our Assembly, in the Chair. She is from the Republic of Moldova, so I am particularly proud to see her playing that role.

      Significant legal changes are taking place in my country. We now have legislation on gender equality. Just a few days ago many amendments were made to our legislation precisely on the issue of the representation of women. We have introduced a system whereby 40% of those elected should be women. This gave rise to a lot of discussion in Moldova. There were people who said, “We do not need a quota. Our women are already very active politically. They do many things. They have a very active and prominent role in our society without quotas. They do not need them”. However, NGOs and women’s organisations said over and again, “No, if we are going to have proper representation of women in all governance structures in Moldova, we need quotas.”

      Thanks to the work done by women’s associations and political parties in Moldova, we have been able to move forward. We also worked with the United Nations and the Council of Europe on these issues. Thanks to all that has been done, we have been able to make changes to our legislation. We are a young country. We became independent only in 1991. But I am delighted to tell you that in our country, young as we are, we have already had a woman prime minister. We have had women very much involved at the highest levels of governance in our country – not yet president but we are having presidential elections later this year and, who knows, maybe we will see a woman winning that election and becoming our president.

      I can tell you that 64 – 22% – high-level governance posts in Moldova are held by women. I can also tell you that significant changes are under way for gender equality. We are making progress. However, society in Moldova is now calling on our government to put the principles in our legislation into practice.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Ahmed-Sheikh is not here. I call Ms Hetto-Gaasch.

      Ms HETTO-GAASCH (Luxembourg)* – I congratulate Ms Centemero on her most interesting and comprehensive report. A balanced participation of women and men in all decisions of political and societal life is the cornerstone of democracy. Given that men and women have viewpoints and priorities that are sometimes different but which can often complement each other, this mix in decision-making bodies is an asset that should not be overlooked.

      Women represent a key potential for knowledge and skills, which is of great importance for both the political world and the economic world. It is a potential that we cannot ignore. Failing to tap into this potential could even be seen as a grave error on our part. We therefore need to place our hopes in the people responsible for drawing up electoral lists that they can tap into this potential. On the other hand, we should also do more to encourage women to take up politics by equipping them with the means necessary to do this. It is also important for the economic world to adapt to this, to offer flexible structures in the world of employment and provide quality childcare facilities, so that both women and men can devote time and energy to their work and to politics.

      I would like to give you a few examples of good practices that we have been applying in my country, Luxembourg. The system of mentoring is an excellent way to promote new talent. The mentor derives satisfaction from sharing their own experience with young people and the mentee has someone they can turn to and put questions to. This means that potential female candidates can follow very closely the daily life of their mentor at political and other levels. Some political parties have internal quotas: from the outset they define the minimum percentage of female and male candidates there should be on the list. Our government has just adopted a Bill which provides for financial penalties under legislation concerning the funding of political parties if 40% of the under-represented gender is not achieved. Based on analyses of TV shows, we have called on the media to give more visibility to women because far too often the media use male experts, male presenters and male politicians. By giving extra visibility to women, we can encourage women to follow these models and encourage the TV audience to have full confidence in women.

      My final point is all about confidence and trust. Above and beyond all the campaigns and measures that have been carried out to increase the participation of women on electoral lists, there is one category of people that we should not forget: voters. Voters need to be convinced by the candidates and they need to have full confidence in female candidates’ abilities. I encourage women to have confidence in women and to support their own sex. To have this equality we want, we must ensure that full support is provided in this. We want the whole of society to be convinced about striking this balance between women and men in politics but this is only one of a series of measures that need to be taken to achieve full equality between men and women.

      Ms BULIGA (Republic of Moldova) – I would like to highlight the top notch work carried out by the rapporteur, my colleague from the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Patriarchal approaches and gender stereotypes are among the main causes of gender inequality in Moldova. The Gender Equality Index for 2009 to 2014 shows that we are currently halfway towards gender equality. When that period is analysed and the impacts measured, we see that the policies promoted by the Moldovan Government and political parties are ineffective. Gender equality in Moldova is even lower than in 2009.

      Yet in recent times, Moldovans have become more accepting of the involvement of women in politics and business. The labour market remains one area that lacks effective measures to reconcile family and professional life, such as allowances and child care facilities. That is why men’s wages are about 12.4% higher than women’s; the financial loss was equivalent to 2.32% of GDP in 2014. Moldovan women are compelled to accept work in less well paid sectors and there is direct discrimination through lower pay. Women, who account for 52% of the country’s population, are poorly represented in politics. However, over the past eight years, attitudes towards the role of women in politics have improved and the number of women elected to local public office has gone up.

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Palihovici.)

      The role of the parties is important. My political party – the Democratic Party – has made major progress in promoting women, exceeding the threshold of 30%. On 14 April 2016, Moldova’s parliament approved a minimum quota of 40% in respect of the representation of both genders, and political parties will be punished if they do not observe it. Moldova will seek to take on its commitments to achieve gender equality in economic, political and social life by implementing these legal standards. This report and resolution will contribute substantially –

      The PRESIDENT – I am sorry, but you must finish now; otherwise, others will not have the opportunity to speak. Thank you very much.

      Ms GRECEA (Romania) – The draft resolution on assessing the impact of measures to improve women’s political representation is a useful guide for all European countries willing to adopt equal gender representation and non-discrimination standards. The report gathers together basic principles for a modern and democratic political system that will strengthen the involvement of women in decision-making processes.

      In Romania we have completed a draft law that aims to ensure equal opportunities for both genders by introducing gender quotas for lists of candidates for all elections. The initiative, submitted by liberal members of parliament, will establish an obligation to ensure a minimum proportion of each gender. It will also introduce sanctions for non-compliance, such as the rejection of candidate lists. I support the adoption of the draft resolution, which may represent an important milestone in reforming electoral legislation at European level. Moreover, countries such as Slovenia and Serbia are examples of good practice when it comes to women’s representation in politics. I hope that Romania will complete the process of reform ahead of this year’s parliamentary elections. I highlight the necessity of implementing a mechanism allowing such representation, including the equitable distribution of eligible seats.

      Furthermore, I am considering applying the principles in the draft resolution to promote young candidates for eligible seats. We all know that we have to do much more to ensure equal gender representation and non-discrimination standards, as women are still vastly under-represented in politics in most countries. I fully agree with Ms Centemero, who believes that to achieve gender equality in politics it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach and a gender equality perspective in all other areas of society. I call on all Assembly members to stand up for this noble cause.

      Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – I congratulate Ms Centemero on her excellent work. The quality and legitimacy of a country’s democratic culture is directly linked to the representation of women in politics and decision making. If half a country’s population is persistently under-represented and discriminated against, the democratic functioning of the system itself must be questioned.

      The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women considers that 30% representation is sufficient, although not optimal, to bring about the necessary change in political culture, corporate governance and general performance. Anything below that threshold is detrimental to our democracies and societies as a whole. Given the disparities in Europe when it comes to women’s rights, it is fair to say that a lot remains to be done even though some countries have already achieved commendable results. Some countries in Europe such as Cyprus, however, remain overwhelmingly patriarchal in most areas of public and private life and that has had a negative impact on the advancement of women. On a more positive note, however, we have just passed legislation making it mandatory for women to have at least 30% representation on all public boards.

      We should focus our energy in our respective countries on the effectiveness of our national gender equality policies and legislative frameworks, the existence of a strong welfare state receptive to the needs and aspirations of women, the encouragement of a strong and independent women’s rights movement acting as an umbrella organisation, the allocation of resources towards civil society, the conduct of research feeding into public policy with specific policy recommendations and the encouragement of a broad public debate on the issue.

      If we want it to succeed, the issue of gender parity in decision making and the representation of women in political life must be driven for men as well as women. Positive measures such as the introduction of quotas within parties or as a legislative benchmark may be suitable for one country but not the best solution for another. Although many countries have adopted progressive legislation on gender representation, significant gaps in its application still exist. I sincerely hope that this Assembly can effectively contribute to lifting all remaining political, socio-economic and cultural barriers to the advancement of women.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco, Partner for Democracy)* – I begin by thanking Ms Centemero for her report. I commend it and the draft resolution. Participation of women in political life and their involvement in political decision making is essential if democracy is to be developed in a country or a society. It is an essential prerequisite for socio-economic development. Morocco has sought to ensure women’s involvement in politics and political decision making at all levels.

      One of our key policy aims in recent years has been to ensure that women are properly represented in public bodies. We have adopted numerous pieces of legislation and institutional changes have been made as we have sought to promote the role of women in our society. We hope to move towards gender equality in law. We have sought to foster women’s participation in political and public life, which we have done by establishing mechanisms that allow us to put that into practice, working on the basis of gender parity and allowing women and men to work from the same footing in socio-economic, environmental and cultural aspects of our society.

      We also seek to promote equal opportunities for men and women in elected office. In accordance with our new constitution we have introduced a mechanism that intends to enhance the way in which women are represented in our parliamentary bodies. Indeed, we have now allowed 67 women to take seats in our chamber of representatives. As a result, we have seen an increase of 17% in women’s representation in our parliament compared with the situation some years ago.

      Women can play a remarkable role in public bodies. With that being so, in 2011 we introduced new mechanisms to ensure certain quotas of women at provincial and district level throughout the country. In other words, some constituencies are reserved for women, which means that at local level many more women can be elected today than was the case in 2009. Women may stand in those reserved seats while also fighting electoral campaigns in other constituencies. All of that is part of our general campaign to enhance the way in which women are represented in Morocco in the highest offices of political life at both national and district level. Our goal is to strike an appropriate balance between the way in which women and men participate in political life, particularly at community and local level. We want to ensure that properly skilled and competent women are allowed to play the role they should play.

      We have met some cultural resistance, and even some political parties are reluctant about having women at the helm at local level because of such attitudes.

      Mr JAKOVONIS (Lithuania)* – I thank Ms Centemero for her work and for the enormous amount of work that has gone into the report. The Lithuanian delegation supports the ideas expressed in it in order to step up women’s participation in politics. I would like to express my opinion when reference is made to equal rights between men and women. At times, I have some misgivings. Do I want to keep my wife at home? Of course not.

      No hurdles prevent women from participating in such activity in our country. There has been a constant growth in the number of women in the government – there are now three ministers – and of the 141 members of the parliament, 33 are women. The President of Lithuania is a woman, as is the speaker of the parliament – even the head of our delegation here in the Parliamentary Assembly is a woman. Two days ago, Birštonas, which has a female mayor, was given an award in one of the committees. The situation is therefore not so bad and we are moving forward, without needing to have a revolution or putting in artificial quotas for men and women irrespective of their qualities and professionalism.

      Ms ZIMMERMANN (France)* – Michelle Bachelet, the former head of United Nations Women, said that where you have women in politics, politics changes and gains in quality. I am convinced of that. When I was head of the women’s rights delegation and the high representative at the gender equality observatory I always worked to ensure that real equality between men and women should be not just mere words but turned into deeds. While progress has been made, in particular thanks to quotas, problems remain, especially related to the prime transgression against women: not recognising their skills and, therefore, not granting them pay equality. Such inequalities between men and women in society are hurdles not only to women’s access to politics but to discharging mandates.

      For years I have been working to establish a true status for elected members that would allow women to reconcile family life and professional life, but I regret that that status, which has been the subject of multiple recommendations, has not yet been implemented. I will give some tangible examples. In order to allow elected officials, especially at local level, to do their work of administering their town councils and preparing meetings, they have a blanket allowance of hours per quarter and, for part-time work, the time quotient is reduced proportionately based on the number of hours in their contracts. In France, unlike in the Netherlands, part-time workers tend to be women. The same goes for leave, which must be granted during the term of office by the employer, but there is no obligation on remuneration. As women are more greatly affected by job insecurity in part-time work, we can see how difficult it is for them to discharge public office.

      The effective implementation of existing laws on professional equality is all the more vital given that parliamentarians have to face the difficult question of suspending their other professional activities and return to work, given that there is no guarantee that they will be re-elected. There is a need to have a system for workers in the private sector that values the experience acquired in public office to smooth the road for returning to previous jobs.

      In municipal councils, 40% of elected officials are women, whereas the figure for mayors is 16%. As the High Council for Gender Equality rightly denounced, redistribution of posts stops where the power begins: the women deliberate and the men decide. I thank the rapporteur for her outstanding work and I give my full support not only to her resolution but to the many battles that await us to bring about genuine equality in politics and in democratic societies and elsewhere.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – I thank Ms Centemero for her very good work. Indeed, the topic of the report is important and your work has been comprehensive, with the correct emphasis. I agree very much with your statement that the small number of women in politics remains a critical issue that undermines the full functioning of the democratic process. Unfortunately low representation of women in politics is still the case in most Council of Europe member States. States’ policies on this issue should ensure equal rights and opportunities for all citizens. They must be based on the idea that gender equality is a prerequisite for the establishment of a democratic, social and legal State, as a supreme democratic value, a matter of fundamental human rights and a requirement for achieving social justice.

      Female representation is the cornerstone for achieving that position. It contributes to balance and softer politics, internal and external, making them more humanistic. Unfortunately our region has a long way to go to reach the desirable representation of women. If there were better participation by women in Azerbaijani public and political life, the politics of the authorities would not be so repressive with regard to freedoms within the country as well as their relations with their neighbours.

      A new electoral code is under active discussion in Armenia, with necessary changes stemming from the recent constitutional reforms approved by referendum in December 2015. Among numerous other reforms, the new electoral code also provides substantial changes, including quotas and other measures to guarantee increased political participation by women. The new electoral code provides that 30% of registration will be apportioned to women candidates – a 10% increase compared with current legislation. If a female candidate withdraws from the list, they must be replaced by another female representative. If the list does not meet the conditions, the submitter of the list is told to remedy the deficiencies. If those are not corrected, the national electoral commission will not validate the list. The same increases in quota and the replacement mechanism for the list of candidates also apply to local elections. Party quotas and electoral commitments by individual political parties aim to include a specific proportion of women among their candidates nominated to stand for election. That is a brief description of current reform in Armenia

.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Naghdalyan.

      I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. The texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours from now.

       I now call Ms Centemero to reply to the debate. You have six minutes.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – I thank all those colleagues who have contributed to the debate today and those who discussed and actively contributed to the report in committee. It is obvious that this subject concerns us all, the Council of Europe, and individual member States, and everybody in the debate has attempted to share a picture of the political representation of women in their own countries.

      In particular, I thank Minister Boschi for her presence this morning. It was important for her that she be present this morning as we adopt this draft resolution. She was able to share with us all the progress that has been made in my country, thanks to her efforts, in pushing forward the agenda of gender parity. I am indeed proud of that.

      I also wish to thank the Secretariat for assisting me with the drafting of the report.

      There is another development in the report because we have a 360 degree take on the situation in a very broad-based approach, taking into account differing situations. We have attempted to throw light on the participation of women in political life. We all want to see the harmonious and balanced participation of both men and women in political life. That is one of the pillars of the 2014-17 gender equality strategy of the Council of Europe. The report highlights how balanced participation can be attained, but it presupposes that certain factors be put in place – first and foremost, political factors.

      We have talked about the importance of constitutions and electoral laws, and I much appreciated statements on the role of political parties, because they are decisive when it comes to the choice of candidates and, therefore, the possibility that men and women can participate in political life in a balanced way. Many speakers mentioned the social factors, in particular the sharing of responsibilities between men and women, because that involves participation in all levels of public life.

      One of the major obstacles to enabling women to participate in political life is the funding of electoral campaigns. Training and education are also important aspects, not only in political parties but in governmental associations. In civil society, working in NGOs and other associations enables women to gain experience that, in turn, can help to ensure more balanced participation.

      The report introduces certain aspects: it is important that we act at the level of constitutions and electoral legislation. We need to ensure a better work/life balance, but civil society has an important role to play. As was said in the debate, we need to be ambitious in our objectives. I think we are: we are talking about parity. But we need to remain vigilant and make it clear that women’s role in society is important. Women do not need politics: politics – our institutions – need the contribution that women have to make. They need women’s talents, skills and the passion that women bring to their work, and we have to make that possible.

      Gender is never neutral. We talk about gender neutrality, but I do not agree. Gender is based on the differences between the male and the female. When we talk about non-discrimination, it does not annul the differences; rather it acknowledges and recognises those differences. Men and women can indeed contribute if they are represented in a balanced way in political life, but also in society at large. When I talk about balanced participation of men and women in politics, I never lose sight of the fact that it should reflect the balanced participation of men and women in other sectors too, such as the world of employment and the economy, society in general and in culture.

      We need to have a broad take on the issue and we need to encourage greater public debate so that we can act on the measures that we advocate in the report. Those measures need to be adopted in all our countries, even though they have different constitutions, cultures and histories. We have to ensure that the measures are implemented so that we can achieve balanced representation of and participation by men and women in political life and in our institutions in general.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Centemero. I call Ms Hoffmann, vice-chairman of the committee. You have two minutes.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Europe has been able to create a space for freedom and democracy that is open to all men and women. Ms Centemero’s report and the draft resolution are intended precisely to ensure that women can fully exercise all their rights, including the right to personal and direct involvement in politics.

      Equality of opportunity for men and women is a cornerstone of our civilisation, and that is partly thanks to the work of the Council of Europe. Our Assembly has made a significant contribution to that work. The text before us is, first and foremost, the result of the commitment and work of our rapporteur. However, members of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination have also spared no effort in seeking to contribute to the preparation of that text, particularly by sharing national experiences. I congratulate the rapporteur on her text. She has succeeded in bringing together widely varying experiences and reflecting them in the document, and she has produced ambitious conclusions.

      The draft resolution gives us the opportunity to continue down the path laid out by those who came before us and to add to what the Assembly has achieved in promoting gender equality. Today, we are able to discuss these matters not just among parliamentarians from our 47 member States but with colleagues from observer countries and with those involved in our partnerships for democracy. The added value of our Assembly is precisely the breadth of our horizon, which makes it possible for us to promote our principles to those living around us. The right of women to participate in political life on an equal footing with men is an integral part of those principles.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Hoffmann.

      The debate is closed.

      The Equality Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 15 amendments have been tabled. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the vice-chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 7, 9 and 13, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Amendment 14 was also unanimously agreed by the committee, but it cannot be declared as agreed under this procedure because it falls if Amendment 4 is agreed to.

      Is that so vice-chairperson? That appears to be the case.

      Amendments 7, 9 and 13 are adopted.

      We come to Amendment 1. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 6 falls. I call Mr Nissinen to support the amendment.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – Paragraph 2 of the draft resolution states that “quotas are the most effective measures to achieve significant, rapid progress.” Furthermore, it says that we must have “ambitious targets” for quotas, which means 50:50 male to female parity. Finally, it says that there must be “stringent sanctions for non-compliance” with the quotas, which means severe punishment. Clearly, we must reject this absurd and undemocratic paragraph in the draft resolution.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6. I call Ms Wurm to support the amendment.

      Ms WURM (Austria) – Voluntary measures are not as effective as banning measures. Therefore, we want to reinforce paragraph 2 by making it clear that binding electoral quotas are the most effective.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the words: “positive measures such as quotas, whether legal or voluntary,”.

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

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – Paragraph 4 contains general measures for women’s participation in public life. The provisions are, on the whole, welcome, with the exception of the words “positive measures such as quotas, whether legal or voluntary”. Those are the words we want deleted and we hope our colleagues feel the same.

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Ms Åberg, Mr Billström, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Grozdanova and Ms Ghasemi, which proposes, in Amendment 2, delete the words, “positive measures” and the words “whether legal or voluntary”. I call Ms Åberg to support the sub-amendment.

      Ms ÅBERG (Sweden) – There are measures other than quotas that could promote women’s representation in politics, so I propose that we delete only the words “such as quotas”.

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

      What is the opinion of Mr Nissinen?

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      We now come to the main amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Christoffersen.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I remind the Assembly that we just rejected Amendment 1. If we want to be consistent in our voting, we should also reject Amendment 2.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 8, “In the draft resolution, paragraph 10, in the last sentence, replace the words ‘pave the way’ with the following words: ‘are essential’.”

      I call Ms Wurm to support Amendment 8. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms WURM (Austria) – The words “pave the way” are not strong enough. We suggest replacing them with “are essential” because provisions on political and civil rights are absolutely essential for change and equality.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Centemero wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Equality Committee as follows:

      In Amendment 8 to insert at the end “because they pave the way”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Centemero to support her oral sub-amendment.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – The oral sub-amendment seeks to make the text clearer. It is a mere clarification.

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

      What is the opinion of Ms Wurm?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT –The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Nissinen to support the amendment.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – The draft resolution openly admits that it seeks a diktat of 50% men and 50% women in member States’ national parliaments and other electoral political bodies. I am sure no one here would have anything against a 50:50 split between the sexes, or even 80% women and 20% men for that matter, provided it came about naturally, not quota by diktat.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4, which is “In the draft resolution, delete paragraph 15.2”.

      If this amendment is agreed to in its current form, Amendments 10, 14, 11 and 15 fall.

      I call Mr Nissinen to support Amendment 4. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – Paragraph 15.2 talks about “quotas and other positive measures” in relation to paragraphs 15.2.1 to 15.2.6. Amendment 4 wants all sanctions for non-compliance to disappear.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Gunnarsson to support the sub-amendment. If the sub-amendment is agreed to, Amendment 15 will not fall. As he is not here, does anyone else wish to support the sub-amendment?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I move the sub-amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of Mr Nissinen on the sub-amendment?

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      We come now to the main amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Cruchten.

      Mr CRUCHTEN (Luxembourg) – I wish to speak against the amendment because it, and all the amendments tabled by Mr Nissinen, seeks to remove the core elements of the resolution. If we adopt them we might as well throw away the resolution, because it will not be worth the paper it is written on.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 10, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 15.2.1 with the following paragraph: “include in the legislation on the functioning of political parties regulations on the nomination of candidates aimed at ensuring equal gender representation;”

      I call Ms Wurm to support Amendment 10. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms WURM (Austria) – We want to delete the words “if possible” and such regulations should respect the principle of proportionality and not be bothersome to political parties.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Centemero wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Equality Committee, which is, in Amendment 10, after “include” to insert “, if possible,”. In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to its being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Centemero to support her oral sub-amendment.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – We want to add the words “if possible” because it is impossible to regulate the functioning of parties in all our constitutional and legal systems.

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

      What is the opinion of Ms Wurm?

      Ms WURM (Austria) – I agree with Ms Centemero’s proposal.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In fact, this is more like a point of order. I and some colleagues around me are not very clear about Ms Centemero’s oral sub-amendment. Could you clarify whether the words “if possible” have been included? If those words have been included, it is okay; but if they have not, I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      As Mr Badea is not here, Amendment 14 falls.

      We come to Amendment 11. I call Ms Wurm to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms WURM (Austria) – We want to replace “sex” with “gender” because they are not synonyms.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 15. I call Hetto-Gaasch to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms HETTO-GAASCH (Luxembourg)* – Of course we need women’s associations, but we also need men’s associations to promote the positive impact of parity and the beneficial effects of balanced participation for women. We therefore want to include men’s associations to promote the beneficial effects of parity.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 5. I call Mr Nissinen to support the amendment.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – The electoral commissions mentioned in this sub-paragraph would have the task of overseeing the introduction of electoral quotas. Naturally enough, as all our amendments have been directed against electoral quotas, we want this sub-paragraph deleted, too.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 12. I call Ms de Sutter to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms DE SUTTER (Belgium) – Sex is a biological term; gender is a cultural term. We are talking not about males and females but men and women. We are also talking about gender equality. So, for consistency, in this single remaining place, the word “sex” should be replaced with the word “gender”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14011, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

2. Address by Mr Giorgi Kvirikashvili, Prime Minister of Georgia

The PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Giorgi Kvirikashvili, Prime Minister of Georgia. After his address, Mr Kvirikashvili will take questions from the floor.

      Dear Prime Minister, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to the Assembly, which brings together members of parliament from all over Europe and beyond to support human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Since Georgia joined the Council of Europe in 1999, the Georgian authorities and the people of Georgia have demonstrated their commitment to these shared values. Your country’s efforts in respect of Council of Europe integration are to be commended.

      Prime Minister, closer integration means that Georgia needs to continue on this positive path and intensify efforts to strengthen State institutions and the rule of law. This will make your country stronger in the face of the challenges you are confronting. Parliamentary elections are around the corner in Georgia. Whatever the outcome, those in opposition and those in power will need to play a consultative role in promoting the ideas of the Council of Europe through dialogue and democratic principles. I would like to assure you, Prime Minister, that Georgia can count on the Assembly’s support in this process.

      Prime Minister, we are keen to hear your message to us. You have the floor.

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI (Prime Minister of Georgia) – President of the Parliamentary Assembly, members of the Assembly, ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to affirm Georgia’s commitment to the vision of a Europe whole and free, at a point in time when everyone’s faith in that vision is being put to the test. For Georgia, the boats have long been burned. We have made our choice. We have come a long way on the path to a whole and free Europe. In April 1999, Georgia acceded to the Council of Europe. There are few institutions that speak of Europe as whole and free as the Council of Europe does. Georgia has joined a number of organisations to be accredited into a club of European nations. That was a national strategy. In joining the Council of Europe, we have become European in the deepest sense of the term, valuing historical roots but also empowering individual citizens.

      Being European is not a geographic statement. It is chiefly about having a sense of security, dignity, freedom and opportunity that reflects a particular social contract. My country will not be free unless its citizens can live in dignity. The idea that citizens have inalienable rights that are not subject to the tyranny of a majority is at the heart of Europe’s democratic experience. We are drafting a social contract of European quality. That contract is not subject to ratification, veto, conditionality, approval or negotiation by anyone else.

      We are moving ahead, despite certain internal or external problems and conditionality. Before 2012, regimes changed, but not by electoral means. Against all odds, in 2012 Georgian people achieved a peaceful transfer of power that amounted to regime change. Since then, we have delivered free elections, both local and presidential, on a level playing field. This year, we will complete the circle with parliamentary elections. We need competitive but also uneventful elections of the kind in which accounts are not frozen, no one controls what kind of news people watch and each candidate has his or her day in the ballot box.

      We eagerly anticipate the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring this year for two reasons. First, Georgia has been served by international monitoring in times when elections could not be lost. We counted on you when our voices could not be heard. Secondly, elections in 2016 will be the most transparent, fair and level elections we have had. We want you to be there to celebrate the results, whatever they are. We are moving away from democratic transition to democratic consolidation, where the winner does not take all and the loser does not lose all. We are proud of that.

      We have delivered Europe to Georgians, and we have surpassed Europe’s expectations of democratic consolidation and democratisation. We are the proof that democracy promotion, conditionality and institution capacity-building work when there is ownership of the objectives before us. If we can do it, so can others. We now have experience in the successful implementation of reforms, identifying objectives, defining tasks, keeping up with deadlines and delivering on quality benchmarks.

      We have recently delivered on visa legalisation prerequisites, which promise the prospect of free and unhindered movement. For obvious reasons, every citizen in Georgia is eager to feel that kind of admittance in this space of free movement. To travel with dignity and to be welcomed and trusted would be the most meaningful and tangible statement of a return to Europe since our independence. The privilege to travel from Vilnius to Athens and from Madrid to Bucharest without a single stop is central to the experience of being European. The 100 million Europeans who joined the European Union in 2004 can empathise with Georgia’s thirst for that kind of freedom. Freedom is an integral part of our identity. After years of reforms and sacrifices, Tbilisi will turn to its citizens in the occupied territories with solid proof that it pays to be pro-European and say, “Join us. Study, work and flourish with us.”

      Each opportunity we deliver to our citizens is the product of hard work. Each policy is a value chain that requires focus, co-ordination, definition of roles, initiative, a sense of responsibility and, of course, leadership. However, reforms are ultimately about chains made of values that anchor us to Europe, which is a civilisation that places the citizen at the heart of the political process. Stakeholder consultations, monitoring, reporting and evaluation keep everyone on their toes.

      Abiding by European standards is an obligation that has now become a habit. The accumulative result of reforms year on year is that citizens, civil society organisations and the media have real power. We are building a home with a place for all citizens of Georgia. By ensuring strong protection of human rights, we are building a home to come to, not to leave. Our national seven-year plan for the promotion of human rights aims to enshrine the democratic values that we stand for at the very heart of our society. We have outlawed discrimination on the basis of colour, national identity, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. We are making a State in which national minorities have the right to their culture, religion and language and to security and opportunity. We are committed to ensuring the full engagement of minorities in the ongoing developments and decision-making processes in Georgia.

      We are building a society where women are protected not only by law but in practice. Since July 2015, civic organisations can file cases on behalf of victimised women. We have signed the Istanbul Convention. We have a national action plan for Security Council Resolution 1325. When I look at the Davos gender equality economic indicators, it is clear that Georgia has some way to go, but we are looking at those indicators, and that is the beginning of every serious policy. We have transformed the ministry of internal affairs into a community-oriented organisation and enacted a new law on policing, which sets the highest standards for the protection of human rights and enshrines the principles of legality, equality, proportionality and political neutrality. We cannot outlaw intolerance, but we can make it unacceptable.

      Looking ahead, the priority of the Government of Georgia is to ensure decent living conditions and opportunities for Georgian citizens. Our agenda is as comprehensive as ever. Having introduced a national healthcare programme and doubled welfare services, we have adopted a four-point reform agenda with the following priorities. First, we are facilitating jobs creation by further liberalising business and the investment environment, including inter alia by implementing tax reform and supporting entrepreneurship. Secondly, we are empowering people by supporting skills creation in education reforms targeted at bridging the gap between what professions demand and the supply. Thirdly, we are strengthening open governance by ensuring that we have an inclusive decision-making process, where opposition, civil society and private sector voices are heard. Fourthly, we are improving and modernising public services, including by introducing the single-window principle and a unified front office for all government services for individuals and companies.

      Together with the implementation of relevant soft policies, we are investing in core infrastructure development, including by supporting the expansion of the east-west and south-north trade corridors, utilising Georgia’s potential as a transit country between Europe and Asia – we also have massive tourism potential – and thus creating economic opportunities for all our citizens.

      One of the biggest challenges the Georgian Government faces is the situation in the occupied regions of Georgia – Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region of South Ossetia. As a human rights organisation rather than a security organisation, the Council of Europe has an important role to play in protecting human rights in the occupied territories of Georgia. One cause of the violation of human rights in the areas affected by the conflict in Georgia is so-called borderisation, namely artificial obstacles along the occupation line installed by the Russian Federation, which divide families and significantly affect the everyday life of the local population. The people residing within the occupied regions and adjacent areas are deprived of their fundamental rights and freedoms, including but not limited to the freedom of movement, the right to property and family, the right to an education in their native language, and other civic and economic rights.

      Another important concern is Council of Europe access to areas affected by the conflict. Despite his efforts, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner has not been granted access to the occupied regions of Georgia. We seek to break the deadlock in Russia-Georgia relations by pursuing pragmatic policies, including by taking steps to restore relations in trade, transport, humanitarian aspects and other fields, but our efforts to normalise relations with Moscow are insufficient without due respect for our independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are also greatly concerned about the plan of the Tskhinvali South Ossetia de facto authorities to hold a referendum on joining the Russian Federation. Such illegal developments not only undermine Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but have potentially dire consequences in an already-fragile South Caucasus region.

      At all times, security is a priority in parliament. We are no longer a country where each family has someone in prison. Only a few years ago, we were the country that held the shameful record of having more prisoners per capita among all European countries. The government could shake you down for your money or your vote, threatening to deprive you of your dignity or that of your loved ones.

      We are European, but the term “dignity” lies at the heart of being a Georgian. We have worked and are working closely with the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, European Union special adviser Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe special adviser Michael O’Boyle, and the European Commission. That forum will provide what should be taken for granted: a depoliticised police force; a prosecution that goes after offenders of any social class; a justice system that cannot be arm-twisted; a plea bargaining process that does not shake up in blackmail; a plea bargaining system that serves justice, not power; and a penitentiary system that is not an instrument of revenge and mass terror.

      Are we perfect yet? No, we are not. No one in Europe is perfect. We have utopias that are unreachable – that is very European – but the commitment to constructing a utopia lies at the heart of a nation that has discovered wine and is determined to build a republic. That is hard work but it is also decent work.

      The new 2016 to 2019 action plan agreed between Georgia and the Council of Europe focuses on the promotion of penitentiary and judicial reforms. We have moved from the general to the specific with resolve. The independence of the judiciary and prosecution has been armoured with life tenure and peer-to-peer regulation and oversight. Our administration did that from 2013 to this day in three successive waves of reform. The transparency of the judicial process has been reinforced to create a level playing field between the prosecution and defence, and we have consolidated best European practice for the safety and impartiality of jury trials. We have halved the prison population and are using imprisonment as a measure of last resort, and we have put in place guarantees for juvenile offenders.

      We are the first government since Georgia’s independence that is not feared. Perhaps that is the achievement of which we are most proud, although we are shamed by the fact that the rule of law cannot be extended to the occupied territories. We can only do what we can for internally displaced persons and refugees. We can only invest in confidence-building measures and outreach, and hope for a bottom-up solution.

      We are delivering what we can where we can. In doing so, we will be criticised and monitored, as we should be. Our work is not technocratic but political. As representatives of the Georgian people, we set an agenda, prioritise, allocate resources and assume responsibilities – or, in one word, lead.

      The government believes with good reason that confidence in the rule of law requires not only reforms, but restorative justice. We want to make Georgia a better place to live for citizens, and not just to show off. In the history of democracy, there has never been restorative justice without controversy. The balance between restoration and lustration is thin, and criticism is inevitable. We want unity, but not at the expense of justice. We want justice, but not at the expense of unity. That is the essence of our Gordian knot, but we will not cut the knot with silence – as Martin Luther King said, our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. We must loosen the knot. To be silent is to be an accomplice in injustice, and Georgia needs to believe in justice. That is the essence of democratic consolidation for us. No one should be forced to be silent, and no one is forced to be silent in Georgia today.

      Reporters without Borders suggested that, in 2015, Georgia was a leader in eastern Europe. Freedom House has continued to provide glowing reviews of Georgia over the past four years. For freedom of the Internet, Georgia is ninth in the world, on a par with Britain and France. In 2012, we created one of the most liberal digital broadcasting regimes in the world. We go the extra mile. The board of public broadcasters is a truly independent body that engages stakeholders, including NGOs and monitors. Cable TV providers must guarantee media pluralism and offer alternative voices.

      As I said, we are celebrating 17 years having a relationship with the Council of Europe in April, and 25 years of the restoration of independence in May. Twenty-five years is a generation. We have had a generation of moving towards the essence of Europe, which complements independence and is significant for each Georgian. In pursuing democratic consolidation and building a European state, we are opting for a certain kind of civilisation. That is the essence of our choice.

      The Council of Europe is at the heart of being European and of the kind of contract we want as a polity. We understand that the Parliamentary Assembly is as much about politics as policies. From our friends and foes, this year we ask one thing: make decisions of which you can be proud. By all means be critical, but also be helpful. Help us build on the foundations that we have laid together. Help us be all we can be in a country that is partly occupied, but fully European.

      Georgia has responded to expectations. We are proof that promoting democracy, institution building, civic empowerment, conditionality and reforms work. We hope that, together, we can set a faster pace towards democratic consolidation. Together, against the odds and against the forces that want to take Europe apart, we stand on the right side of history. Let us stand together for everything that Europe stands for. We are European, which is the essence of dignity, which is at the heart of every Georgian. “European” means the dignity of a citizen that every Georgian deserves, and dignity is at the heart of our identity.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Kvirikashvili, for a most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more; otherwise there is not enough time for everyone to speak. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Following your speech to the Assembly, we assume that the election campaign, the election itself and the time after the election will be conducted in full accordance with the standards of the Council of Europe. What influence does the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have on the election campaign?

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – As you know, in October, we have parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, our citizens in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region cannot participate in them. We have already sent invitations to ODIHR to come to Georgia and monitor the pre-election process. Our aim is to provide a fully transparent pre-election process and to have our partners monitor it. We are determined to hold one of the best free and fair elections in Georgia’s history Georgia.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – You and your people are indeed European, and we understand your frustration and your aspirations to join the European Union and NATO. Will you tell us a little more about the human rights changes to make you even fitter for those organisations? In particular, are you prepared to accept the recommendations of the Venice Commission on your electoral law?

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – Of course our vector towards Europe and your Atlantic space is the decision of the Georgian people. Georgia’s aspirations towards Europe and NATO are consistent. We have a positive dynamic towards Europe. We have an association agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade area agreement, and we have a reform agenda under the association agreement. We have made good progress, which was confirmed at two consecutive Association Councils in Brussels. We have made excellent progress in improving Georgia’s military interoperability with NATO troops. Georgia takes part in peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and the Central African Republic. We are preparing for the next Warsaw Summit to have even closer co-operation with NATO through more joint programmes to build Georgia’s defence capabilities.

      We have already enshrined a significant number of the Venice Commission recommendations in electoral legislation. Recently, the number of majoritarian districts has been changed to reflect the equality of all majoritarian districts. Co-operation with the Venice Commission is important for all of us. We are open to that co-operation. I recently held an important dialogue with opposition parties and non-parliamentary opposition groups to discuss electoral legislation, and important changes have been proposed to accept some of the opposition parties’ recommendations. The process is inclusive, and we aim to make it even more inclusive, bring down the temperature, decrease confrontation and increase the co-operative spirit before the elections.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – I welcome you on behalf of the Liberal group and hail your commitment to complying with European standards. A few months from the election, are there any moral tensions about the violation of human rights, especially the right to privacy? I am thinking of the registering and recording of the private lives of citizens in your country. Who is responsible for this and what measures do you envisage taking to put that right? I know that you have pledged to reform pre-trial detention, but that is a lengthy process. Will you reform it so that it is in line with the standards of the Council of Europe?

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – First, leaking videotapes of private life is blackmail against the society and, especially, the Government of Georgia. If there is anyone who wants to have this issue investigated and to find the suspects it is the Prime Minister – and the Government. The investigation is ongoing. Immediately after the release of the videotapes I asked our law enforcement institutions to launch an investigation. International institutions and our partners are engaged in this investigation; namely, the FBI is helping the Georgian prosecutor’s office investigate this issue. The investigation is going in two directions: first, to find those who were engaged in the videotaping and, secondly, to find the distributors of the tapes. In the first instance we have had some success: five former officials have already been arrested. The second issue of the distributors is very sophisticated and we are doing everything possible to find the suspects.

      Generally, human rights are a very high priority for us. We elaborated a human rights strategy in 2014 and the Prime Minister chairs the interagency monitoring committee to protect human rights in Georgia. On pre-trial detention, we have asked for feedback from our European friends and of course we will listen very carefully to the recommendations.

      Mr PRITCHARD (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – Prime Minister, welcome. Of course, the greatest human right of all is the right to life. I pay tribute to your State security services intercepting – just in the past few hours – a sale of uranium 238, which could have fallen into the hands of terrorists. In a week when NATO and the EU have said that terrorists are seeking these materials, what more do you think Georgia, the Russian Federation and former Soviet republics can do to ensure that these chemical weapons and nuclear materials do not fall into the hands of those who seek to harm all of us in Europe?

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – Indeed, capturing criminals who were attempting to take uranium across the border was a significant success. We take this issue very seriously. We have excellent co-operation with our partners. Recently the President of Georgia attended the Nuclear Security Summit in New York and co-operation in this area is highly important to us. Generally, we have excellent co-operation with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom recently helped Georgia build a security emergency management room, which was a great success and an excellent case of very fruitful co-operation between the Georgian and United Kingdom security forces.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – Mr Prime Minister, you have committed yourself on several occasions to undertaking the necessary reforms to electoral law before the parliamentary elections in Georgia in October. Indeed, the most recent announcement was on 15 April, just a few days ago. However, according to a number of reports by all the opposition parties, no positive changes have been introduced to the current legislation. Given that in March the Venice Commission also made a rather negative assessment of the changes in electoral law that were made last December, what measures do you intend to take in the immediate future to align the electoral legislation with the Venice Commission recommendations, and can you give this Assembly a timeframe for their introduction?

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – First of all, there were several series of changes to electoral legislation. On the very first day of my approval as Prime Minister by the parliament, I immediately launched a negotiation process with the opposition parties. Two days ago we proposed important changes to the electoral code to make the process more inclusive, to lower the thresholds for political parties to win the election to become parliamentarians, and to lower the thresholds for financing the opposition parties from the State budget. There is a political agreement between the ruling party and the opposition parties that in 2020 the system will change from majoritarian to proportional representation. But six months before the elections it would be very difficult to readjust the electoral system to the entirely new proportional system. This is why we partly disagree with the proposal from the opposition parties. This is where we are right now. We are continuing the negotiations and this process is not over. Our proposal should be appreciated by the opposition because it makes significant changes to the current electoral system.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Mr Prime Minister, thank you for your speech. There is a strong Russian influence on the media landscape of Georgia and unfortunately the ECRI report has also announced that some kinds of xenophobic media were supported by the government via advertising contracts. What will you do to stop this tendency, and would your government like to have better co-operation with the pro-European opposition, including Ukrainian National News?

      Mr BABAOĞLU (Turkey)* – Prime Minister, in the past two years about 500 Meskhetian Turks have been granted conditional Georgian citizenship. Unless the time limitation is either lifted or extended, many Meskhetian Turks will risk losing their Georgian citizenship. Since the facilitation of this process was one of Georgia’s membership commitments, what steps are you taking to encourage a solution?

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – Prime Minister, welcome to the Council of Europe – the home of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Putting our political differences aside, I want to ask a question that is very important for this Organisation. You have described three waves of reforms that the government has carried out in respect of the judiciary. How satisfied and pleased are you with that reform? In the end, a judge whose decisions had been overturned by the European Court of Human Rights many times had become the face of Georgian judiciary.

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – The first question, from the Estonian delegate, was about the impact of Russia and strengthened Russian propaganda in the Georgian media. Our response has been to launch a massive strategic pro-European communication campaign, which is very important. Our Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, who is here, chairs this massive campaign which targets all sources of central and regional media. It promotes European values, human rights protection and the importance of building democratic institutions. That is the way to respond to anti- European Union propaganda.

      I would not say that there is any financing of xenophobic media, although that may be a perception among some opposition members. The TV channels, which are mainly opposition, are financed much more intensively. We cannot block any media source; we can only make our choices. We have made our choices in favour of the pro-European media and that is very important.

      Our friend from Turkey asked about Muslim Meskhetians. Georgia has fulfilled its obligations in this regard. We have adopted a law on the repatriation of people forcibly exiled from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia. The status of repatriate has already been granted to 1 533 forcibly displaced people. Some 479 Azerbaijani citizens have repatriate status and obtained Georgian citizenship. The process is under way. In 2010, the Georgian government adopted a simplified procedure for the acquisition of Georgian citizenship by individuals with returnee status. In 2014, the repatriation strategy based on the principle of the equality of all citizens, non-discrimination and the promotion of integration was approved. The issue of the extension of the two-year term for the completion of citizenship procedures for the people forcibly deported in the 1940s is under examination, with the involvement of the relevant government agencies. Most probably a positive decision will be adopted in the near future.

      Mr Chikovani asked about judicial reform. In general, no one could be satisfied with the level of reform, but everything is relative. If we compare the existing court system in Georgia with that which existed four years ago, we see that progress has been clear. There were three consecutive waves of judicial reforms. The first was completed in May 2013, the second in August 2014 and the third was sent to parliament in December 2015. What is involved is a new set of legislative amendments aimed at enhancing internal independence. Of course, there will be judges who were part of the previous system, but imagine the allegations from the opposition if we cleared the system of all those judges. We are not doing that.

      The system is not perfect, but we are moving ahead with our reforms and the progress we have made is recognised by numerous international organisations. I shall give one example. World Bank world governance indicators say that there has been a 15% improvement in the rule of law in Georgia since 2012. In other areas such as the control of corruption, accountability, government effectiveness, political stability, absence of violence and regulatory quality there has been a 10% to 15% improvement every year since 2012. That is my answer. We are not satisfied, and no one is perfect. It is important for us to continue these reforms.

      Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany) – Prime Minister, you mentioned the growing distance of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia because of their so-called governments. Do you see any chance of using a people-to-people reconciliation process that could bring the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia back closer to Georgia?

      Mr MARQUES (Portugal) – Prime Minister, I had the pleasure of visiting your country three weeks ago; I was mainly in Tbilisi, which is a wonderful city. It is fair for this Assembly to recognise the excellent job you are doing on the issue of IDPs following the shameful Russian invasion.

      This Assembly declared last year that the arrests of opposition leaders were political, which means that they are political prisoners. Are you ready to release them if the European Court rules in their favour? Can you ensure free and fair elections if the leadership of your country’s opposition are in jail?

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – I congratulate you on your work in respect of the European Union, but can you mention the future of the TV station Rustavi 2? We know that you have brought some moderation to that issue.

      Another question is about the past. Here in the Council of Europe we have just opened an exhibition about totalitarian regimes in Europe. There are five statues of Josef Stalin in Georgia. How can you justify that given what is crystal clear about Georgia’s relationship to the Stalin regime?

      Mr KVIRIKASHVILI – Confidence-building measures between Georgians and Abkhazians and Georgians and South Ossetians are the highest priority for our government. Unfortunately, during several waves of conflicts, the trust between Georgians, Abkhazians and South Ossetians was lost. First of all, we need to rebuild the trust that was lost. We have a comprehensive plan of confidence-building measures, with offers of various social programmes such as free healthcare services and free education. We recently inaugurated a trade centre, which was opened along the administrative border line, at which both Abkhazians and Georgians can trade goods from their cultures.

      That is not the end. We have a very active agenda, but first we need to put on the table our offer to our Abkhazian and South Ossetian citizens. We are working actively on reconciliation and a roadmap. You may understand that this is a sensitive issue, and we need to consolidate consensus in Georgian society. We are working actively towards that and we are likely to present the roadmap in the very near future. This is of a very high priority for us. Visa liberalisation is an important achievement for Georgia. Georgians are waiting anxiously for the final result and all the benefits, such as free trade with Europe, can be available for Abkhazian and South Ossetian citizens and companies.

      On the question of so-called political prisoners – I would call it high-profile prosecution cases – one of the biggest challenges the Georgian Government faces is dealing with the legacy of the criminal activity of officials from the previous government. We had 20 000 complaints about past abuses and 3 000 Georgian citizens were prosecuted. I have never shied away from admitting the positive legacy of the previous administration, but we should also admit that, starting from 2007, life in Georgia became a nightmare for most of the Georgian population. One can say that we have political prisoners, but I would say that we have a rule of law and that no one in Georgia is above justice.

      To ensure transparency, from 2012 we opened court cases to the public and media, so everyone can watch cases of high interest to the Georgian population. The chief prosecutor invited international experts and prosecutors from the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel to form a special board of advisers and, according to the opinion of the international prosecutor adviser panel, the evidence provided by the chief prosecutor was legally and factually sufficient to justify the prosecutions of former high officials. That does not mean that we are happy to see anyone in prison, but that is proof that no one in Georgia is above justice.

      The third question was on Rustavi 2, which was also a high profile court case. The case had two dimensions: ownership and media freedom. In my previous capacity as a Minster of Foreign Affairs I made several statements about protecting Rustavi 2’s editorial independence, which proposed the creation of a board consisting of NGO leaders and media representatives to ensure its editorial independence. However, again the case has two dimensions of which the other is ownership, and by no means can the government intervene in the court’s proceedings regarding ownership. If you ask me what my opinion is, I would like to see Rustavi 2 as it is right now, opposing government policy, so as not to give the opposition the chance to speculate on that issue before the elections in October.

      On sculptures of Stalin, I do not think that Stalin will ever again become important on the Georgian political agenda or in social life. We have a law against the legacy of the Stalin period that is used in prosecutions. The raising of monuments of Stalin is prosecuted in Georgia. That is my answer. We should not take that case seriously because no one in Georgia has any sympathy to or empathy with the Stalin period.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. We must now conclude questions. Mr Prime Minister, thank you very much for the most interesting discussion we have had. I look forward to us continuing our co-operation in the future.

3. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1. Assessing the impact of measures to improve women’s political representation

Presentation by Ms Centemero of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 14011

Statement by Mr Ms Maria Elena Boschi, Minister of Constitutional Reforms and Relations with Parliament of Italy.

Speakers: Ms Rodríguez Hernández, Ms Günay, Mr Valen, Ms Quintanilla, Ms De Sutter, Ms Schneider-Schneiter, Ms Blondin, Ms Stefanelli, Ms Mikko, Ms Yaşar, Mr Neguta, Ms Hetto-Gaasch, Ms Buliga, Ms Grecea, Ms Kyriakidou, Mr Yatim, Mr Jakavonis, Ms Zimmermann, Ms Naghdalyan.

Draft resolution in Document 14011, as amended, adopted

2. Address by Mr Giorgi Kvirikashvili, Prime Minister of Georgia

Questions: Mr Fischer, Lord Anderson, Mr Xuclà, Mr Pritchard, Ms Kavvadia, Mr Herkel, Mr Babaoğlu,

Mr Chikovani, Ms Finckh-Krämer, Mr Marquest, Mr Zingeris.

3. Next public business

Appendix I

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

Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG/Annette Groth

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa

Iwona ARENT

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina

Mehmet BABAOĞLU

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/ Teófilo De Luis

Meritxell BATET*

Deniz BAYKAL

Guto BEBB*

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Magradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Włodzimierz BERNACKI

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs

Jokin BILDARRATZ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Tobias BILLSTRÖM

Oleksandr BILOVOL

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Mladen BOSIĆ

Anne BRASSEUR

Piet De BRUYN/Hendrik Daems

Margareta BUDNER

Valentina BULIGA

Dawn BUTLER*

Nunzia CATALFO/Carlo Lucherini

Elena CENTEMERO

José CEPEDA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Paolo CORSINI*

David CRAUSBY*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Geraint DAVIES*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Renata DESKOSKA*

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE*

Francesc Xavier DOMENECH/Ángela Ballester

Jeffrey DONALDSON*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Franz Leonhard EẞL*

Markar ESEYAN

Nigel EVANS*

Samvel FARMANYAN*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Bernard FOURNIER*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO/Christian Barilaro

Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Martin FRONC*

Sahiba GAFAROVA

Sir Roger GALE/Paul Scully

Adele GAMBARO

Xavier GARCÍA ALBIOL

José Ramón GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Mihai GHIMPU/Alina Zotea

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Oleksii GONCHARENKO

Rainer GOPP

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Maria Grecea

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT*

François GROSDIDIER*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Emine Nur GÜNAY

Valgerður GUNNARSDÓTTIR

Jonas GUNNARSSON*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Tomasz Cimoszewicz

Hamid HAMID*

Alfred HEER/Roland Rino Büchel

Gabriela HEINRICH

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

John HOWELL

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU*

Florin IORDACHE*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Sandra JAKELIĆ/Domagoj Hajduković

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Andrzej JAWORSKI/Daniel Milewski

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Anne KALMARI/Petri Honkonen

Erkan KANDEMIR

Marietta KARAMANLI/ Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON*

Nina KASIMATI

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Filiz KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR

İlhan KESİCİ

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Aleksander Pociej

Manana KOBAKHIDZE

Haluk KOÇ

Željko KOMŠIĆ/Saša Magazinović

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elvira KOVÁCS*

Tiny KOX*

Borjana KRIŠTO

Florian KRONBICHLER

Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Raivo Aeg

Talip KÜÇÜKCAN

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Yuliya L OVOCHKINA*

Inese LAIZĀNE/Nellija Kleinberga

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Luís LEITE RAMOS

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER*

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

Filippo LOMBARDI

François LONCLE*

George LOUCAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Philippe MAHOUX/Petra De Sutter

Marit MAIJ/Tineke Strik

Muslum MAMMADOV*

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Marek Černoch

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Duarte MARQUES

Alberto MARTINS*

Meritxell MATEU

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Manuel Tornare

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Jasen MESIĆ*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Marianne MIKKO

Anouchka van MILTENBURG

Orhan MİROĞLU

Olivia MITCHELL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Thomas MÜLLER/Hannes Germann

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Johan NISSINEN

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON*

Suat ÖNAL

Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN

Joseph O’REILLY/Rónán Mullen

Tom PACKALÉN*

Judith PALLARÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Jaana PELKONEN/Anne Louhelainen

Agnieszka POMASKA

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Mark PRITCHARD

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Kerstin RADOMSKI*

Mailis REPS/Andres Herkel

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Melisa RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ

Helena ROSETA/Paulo Pisco

René ROUQUET*

Alex SALMOND*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Sergiy Vlasenko

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Paul SCHNABEL/Tuur Elzinga

Ingjerd SCHOU/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Koos SCHOUWENAAR*

Nico SCHRIJVER

Frank SCHWABE

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Aleksandar SENIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Paula SHERRIFF*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Adão SILVA*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Egidijus Vareikis

Jan ŠKOBERNE*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK *

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Dominik TARCZYŃSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI

Goran TUPONJA*

İbrahim Mustafa TURHAN/Burhanettin Uysal

Nada TURINA-ĐURIĆ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Leyla Şahin USTA

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN*

Vladimir VORONIN/Liliana Palihovici

Viktor VOVK

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Marija Maja Catović

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Jacek WILK

Andrzej WOJTYŁA

Morten WOLD/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Serap YAŞAR

Leonid YEMETS

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Naira Karapetyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Virendra SHARMA

Observers

Dean ALLISON

Percy DOWNE

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Armando LUNA CANALES

Jennifer O’CONNELL

John OLIVER

Ulises RAMÍREZ NÚÑEZ

David M. WELLS

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Nezha EL OUAFI

Omar HEJIRA

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM