INAUGURAL ADDRESS

BY MR JEAN-CLAUDE MIGNON,

PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

JANUARY PART-SESSION 2012

(Strasbourg, Monday 23 January 2012, 11.45 am)

It is with gratitude and humility that I accept this high office that you entrust to me. Gratitude, for the confidence you place in me. Of course, I thank not only my group, the EPP, but also all the other political groups and especially their chairs. Humility, as I am aware of the magnitude of the task.

The Council of Europe is today going through a crisis and is questioning its future. Following the glorious decade of the 1990s in which the organisation welcomed in the countries of central and eastern Europe, the start of the new millennium placed the Council of Europe on the defensive, especially vis-à-vis the European Union. Sometimes it is in danger of being the “overlooked beauty” of the banks of the Ill, particularly in western Europe. And, because of this, the exemplary achievements of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the Pharmacopoeia, the Venice Commission, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Commissioner for Human Rights are all but disregarded.

Some, adopting a simplistic philosophy of history, wish to believe that we belong to the past. Our results, in their eyes, are of little importance, and the fact that they are obtained at modest cost carries little weight. For them, it is of little importance that the Council of Europe has, thanks to its partial agreements, invented a flexible format for co-operation which has yielded exemplary results. And it matters little that we have 47 member states and 800 million Europeans.

It was in order to counter this mind-set of ignorance and intellectual superficiality that the Secretary General of the Council, Thorbjorn Jagland, and my predecessors have taken steps to abandon that defensive stance in order to go on the offensive, so that the Council of Europe finds its rightful place, both in Europe and internationally. It was in order to contribute to this renewal that I, as rapporteur, suggested convening a new Council of Europe summit of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers believes it would be preferable for the Parliamentary Assembly to begin its own reform process before a summit is convened. That has now been done and I therefore believe that a summit is feasible and would give fresh impetus to the reform process.

With regard to the reform of the Assembly, I wish first of all to pay particular tribute to President Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, whose initiative it was. The reform would not have been possible without his strong commitment. He deserves our renewed thanks for that and for everything he has accomplished in just two years. This reform comes into effect this very day and its implementation will, of course, be one of my priorities.

Before I explain how I view this reform, I would like to stress the importance of the Assembly and the role it played in the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the abolition of the death penalty, in the Bioethics Convention, in the fight against counterfeit medicines and in welcoming in the countries of central and eastern Europe with the introduction of special guest status, to name but a few. Without the existence of a genuine parliamentary assembly, the Council of Europe would be just one intergovernmental organisation among many others. I think this deserves to be said, given that our Assembly is sometimes underestimated.

If we are to live up to this admirable track record, we need to change. This is why reform was necessary.

It is clear to me that parliamentarians are, in two ways, at the very heart of the reform. First, the success or failure of change depends much more on the men and women who will be applying it than on texts. Second, the reform's primary objective is to give them better working conditions.

The new Rules of Procedure should therefore enable all members to express their views. The increase in the time allocated to committees and political groups will allow more detailed debates and should also make it easier for everyone to participate.

In addition, I intend to take a number of practical measures, such as supplementing the induction seminar for new members with a welcome pack given to each member, as it is vitally important for us, on our arrival, to familiarise ourselves with the rules and practices which differ in certain points from those applicable in our own national parliaments.

I would also like to have the opportunity to listen to what everyone has to say, in order to gather your suggestions, comments and complaints. To do this, I first intend to regularly attend committee meetings so as to be fully informed of their work. In this way, I would always be in a position to listen to all members of the Assembly.

Facilitating the work of members of the Assembly also means making sure that they have the working papers in good time. This is not easy even when your mother tongue is English or French. I can therefore completely understand how difficult it is for the majority of our colleagues who are not in this situation. I would advocate the strict application of existing deadlines, or even tightening them up, so that neither in committees nor in plenary, are we in a situation where we are discussing a draft motion that has not been distributed to members two or even three weeks in advance, except of course for urgent debates. It goes without saying that, in return, there would be less flexibility. I would be happy to know your feelings on this issue, and I shall of course take your opinions on board.

If we are to put members at the heart of our Assembly, then there has to be a more participatory functioning of the Bureau, whose role I would like to enhance.

I would also like to ensure that the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents are not limited to replacing the President in chairing sittings, and that certain responsibilities could be delegated to them, if they so desired.

A further major objective of mine is to make the Assembly more relevant in political terms.

This means that we must fully subscribe to the rationale of the reform and have the courage to resist the temptation to over-diversify. Let us refocus our attention on our priorities and cut down the number of topics we discuss.

We must also strive to limit the number of recommendations we address to the Committee of Ministers and to make them as relevant as possible; in exchange, we could be more demanding regarding the follow-up to our proposals.

I shall endeavour to ensure that these strict guidelines are upheld in the Bureau, and do so in as transparent a way as possible. I would like us over time to develop a sort of “case-law” which could result in an annual report explaining the guidelines that we have followed.

Being more relevant also means not being afraid to tackle the real problems.

For example, we in western Europe consider peace to be a given, and it is true for this part of our continent. It is indeed one of the major achievements of the process of European integration. But it is not quite so true if you go to Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, where the UN peacekeepers patrol a wall, which reminds us of another, of more sinister memory. It is the same in Georgia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. It is all too easy to close your eyes and accept the unacceptable, but this carries the risk that one day what is happening in practice becomes law. One of the first duties of our Assembly is to ensure that these questions remain on the agenda and that the parties talk to each other. Parliamentary diplomacy, while it cannot perform miracles, can advance the dialogue on questions where state diplomacy and organisations have failed.

On this subject, as on others, I shall try to ensure that the President’s travels are co-ordinated with all the competent organs of the Council of Europe, depending on the subject; for example the Secretary General, the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, the Chair of the Monitoring Committee, etc. I firmly believe that our voice will be better heard if we act together.

Another sensitive topic is respect by member states of the values of the Council of Europe. Certain excesses are unacceptable. Nonetheless, I would like us to proceed along the path of dialogue, and it takes two to do that. In other terms, let us avoid stigmatisation and threats of exclusion, which is the weapon of last resort and the sign of an irreparable failure.

      During my term as President I also wish to build on and take forward the progress achieved by my predecessor in relations with the European Union. It was for this reason that I welcomed the agreement between the European Parliament and the Assembly on arrangements for participation by the Parliament in the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I will endeavour to continue along this path.

      Still on this subject, I would like the Assembly to continue to keep a very close eye on the issue of the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This unification of the European human rights area is a fundamental achievement of the Treaty of Lisbon and constitutes recognition for the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot allow certain narrow bureaucratic interests to stand in the way of this, even if this is always done in the name of lofty principles! The Court is the Council of Europe’s flagship. Here too, we have a duty to keep a close eye on the Court’s reform process, in liaison with the Committee of Ministers and the Court itself. The Court faces many dangers and I am delighted that the Government of the United Kingdom is making it a priority of its chairmanship.

      We all know that the Court is currently inundated with cases and can no longer keep up. Only very recently it received 8,000 similar applications against a Hungarian law on pensions. Many courses of action can be, and are being, envisaged. I simply think that, whatever solutions are adopted, the Court is such an important institution that they should be the subject of public debate. In other words, I would be wary of a solution which would involve allowing the caseload to build up, with the Court only deciding those cases which it considers to be of priority importance. If the right of individual application is to be called into question, that must be the result of a fully transparent political choice.

      I welcome the Assembly’s increasing role in monitoring the execution of the Court’s judgments. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the exemplary work accomplished in this field by our colleague Christos Pourgourides. I also welcome the efforts made by some national parliaments to follow up this work in the member states. I will do my utmost to ensure that these efforts continue and are stepped up in liaison with the Court.

      Another priority of my term as President will be to continue efforts to improve relations with the Committee of Ministers. We must strengthen and enhance the dialogue between the Council of Europe’s two statutory organs. It is normal and legitimate that we should not always agree, just as the legislative and executive branches may sometimes disagree in the member states. It is the role of parliamentarians to innovate, criticise, and stimulate the work of the Committee of Ministers. Tension between these two institutions can be a source of movement and progress. On the other hand, we have a duty to avoid situations of deadlock.

      To foster a better understanding between the Council of Europe’s two statutory organs, the best solution is for parliamentarians to take an active part in the work of the various working groups and steering committees reporting to the Committee of Ministers. Conversely, it is an excellent thing for Ambassadors to be able to attend the Assembly’s plenary sessions or the meetings of our committees. I recently suggested to the Ambassadors that the President or members of the Bureau might attend their meetings as witnesses, such is the importance of our being aware of each other’s concerns and priorities. I fully approve of the proposals made by Mr Vareikis and Mr Holovaty for enhancing dialogue.

      As regards written questions, I would like us to exercise self-discipline and be careful only to ask questions directly relevant to the Council of Europe’s activities.

      I would like to reform the Joint Committee in close consultation with the Committee of Ministers. Meetings should perhaps be moved to a new time slot, as Thursday evening is not necessarily ideal. Above all, their scope should perhaps be restricted to a specific topic, with all the parliamentarians competent in that area. Both meetings at which I addressed the Committee of Ministers as rapporteur were highly constructive.

      If we are to be more politically relevant, our activities will also need to be better known in the outside world. This therefore brings me to the very difficult issue of our Assembly’s communication policy. I think we will have to try gradually to identify one or two key themes for each part-session to enable people in the outside world to gain a clearer understanding of them. One idea might be to produce an attractive annual activity report. In liaison with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I am going to start looking into the question of how coverage of our sessions by journalists might be improved. Our Assembly’s website is of a very high quality, but I am sure we can increase its clarity and accessibility still further.

      I now wish to broach a subject which is a source of irritation to most of you, namely Strasbourg’s transport links. It is a very difficult subject, but rest assured that I will make every effort to change things. I believe in Strasbourg’s role as European capital; but the logistic means for this have to be provided. I have already established a whole series of informal contacts with my country’s political authorities on this subject. Some possible lines of approach are beginning to emerge, which I would like to share with you:

-       Align the taxes applied to Strasbourg airport with those of airports in the surrounding region;

-       Bring a low-cost airline to Strasbourg;

-       Consider ways of improving links with certain hubs;

-       Improve services between Basel-Mulhouse airport and Strasbourg.

      I cannot promise you any miracles, but I undertake to be extremely active on this issue and to ensure that you are involved. In particular, I will try to organise a meeting between Alsatian political leaders and the members of our Assembly in the months ahead. Above and beyond the issue of Strasbourg’s transport links, I will, indeed, endeavour to develop closer relations between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the region’s elected representatives.

      I wish to pursue a policy based on results. To achieve results, we will need courage, energy and a spirit of innovation. If there is no precedent, we must create one! And if traditions have to be called into question, we must not hesitate to do so!

      In conclusion, I would like to quote Catherine Lalumière, who has been kind enough to honour me with her presence today. At a colloquy which I organised recently in Paris, she stressed that the Council of Europe has a major political role to play, that of “restoring the true meaning of the European project”. If our fellow citizens view the European project solely from a consumer standpoint, she said, that will spell the end of Europe. If Europe does not bring consumer-citizens the hoped-for prosperity, they will wonder what purpose Europe serves. To use her own words, the Council of Europe must be the soul of our continent. It embodies the original spirit of the European project and its ultimate goal. She called on us to combat this ignorance which weighs so heavily on our organisation. As Denis de Rougemont once said, “a united Europe is not a modern expedient, but an ideal which we will only attain by building it”.

      Thank you for your attention.