Speeches April session 2011

Monday 11 April 2011 at 11.30 a.m.

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Progress report

Mr LAAKSO (Finland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – It is important for all members of the Assembly to be properly informed about the problems experienced by the Council of Europe in regard to the monitoring of elections. We have experienced many problems in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and in several other countries as well, because of the lack of unanimity among the international organisations. As you know, three elected bodies are involved in monitoring elections: our own Organisation, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and the European Parliament. However, a fourth organisation, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, is responsible for technical research, especially during pre-election monitoring.

The problem is that ODIHR has taken the upper hand. It believes that it should have the privilege of drafting the resolutions or conclusions in relation to the elections, but why should a single organisation which does not even represent elected people monopolise that task? All the parliamentary organisations have to negotiate on the basis of their drafting of conclusions. This is not a good state of affairs; indeed, it is quite serious. There have been controversies and contradictions in the case of many elections, and for the first time in history the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had to produce its owns conclusions on the elections in Kazakhstan.

It would be a step forward to arrange a rotation between the parliamentary organisations when it comes to the drafting of final statements. Naturally, we would need the assistance of ODIHR, but, although it does valuable work, it cannot be the only organisation to produce the conclusions. It must not be given such a privilege. The overall process must be in the hands of elected bodies.

I also believe that we should concentrate more on the monitoring of pre-election campaigns. Perhaps we could even arrange for our own staff to help us for a little longer in that regard. As Mr Hancock said, we must not concentrate solely on the election day itself, and we must not give other organisations a monopoly on pre-election monitoring. We must not wholly give up a task that is currently in our hands.

I suggest that the Council of Europe examine this question carefully and conduct some research on it. Perhaps in the near future we shall be able to propose to the other international organisations that we negotiate on the possible rotation of the task of drafting election conclusions between our own Organisation, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament, with ODIHR as the assistant organisation, because that should be its place.

Monday 11 April 2011 at 3 p.m.

Communication by Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will be delayed until the second half of this year. That is acceptable, but how will we take care that it will not be any longer? What is the main cause of the delays – is it political or technical?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Jagland to respond.

Mr JAGLAND – The experts have asked for a little more time, until October. The negotiations were foreseen as being completed at the end of June, but they want a little more time on some very complicated issues that are political, but also technical and legal. I can say now that those are very complicated political issues, but I think the main problem is the one that has been asked about. Many have said that it is based on the fact that Europe is divided between EU and non-EU countries that have particular interests. For instance, non-EU countries cannot be under the rule of a bloc vote of the European Union, and at the same time non-EU members need to understand that the EU has a certain logic based on its treaties. We have to take these two things into consideration and try to reconcile them. That is quite a delicate legal, and probably also political, issue that we have to overcome. I would like to say to this Assembly that very much is at stake. If we fail to achieve that, I am totally convinced that we will get a growing new divide in Europe, which nobody wants. We therefore have to have that political perspective when we are dealing with the legal issues. We need to recognise the different nature of the non-EU countries, which, for many reasons, have not joined the European Union. We need to reconcile that with the legal basis of the European Union – that is the crucial point during the negotiations.

The over-indebtedness of states

Mr HUNKO (Germany) – rapporteur of the the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee said that the over-indebtedness of states, and the consequences for human rights and democracy, was an important topic and very topical. Last weekend, a referendum in Iceland had resulted in around 60% of the population voting against a financial repayment plan. This was an important signal. It was a good thing that there was more debate in Europe on this matter, but deplorable that the Icelandic Finance Minister was not in attendance today. The indebtedness of private banks being taken on by the public was clearly a central concern.

This was one of the key issues raised in the report. Privatisation of profit and socialisation of loss could not continue. When losses were mopped up by the public, risk increased, and this put the public sector under pressure. Debt restructuring was also highlighted in the report, and it was clear that a lack of restructuring would lead to serious problems.

In 2009, the Council of Europe had passed Resolution 1673 on the challenges of the financial crisis. The regulation of financial mechanisms was necessary.

One of the report’s recommendations mentioned the increase in the influence of the financial markets on governments. Governments should not be afraid of the markets or take decisions based on fear. Furthermore, countries with the fewest debts should not be asked to foot the bill.

But state indebtedness in itself did not entail a crisis for democracy. The important issue was how countries handled their debts. Indebtedness combined with austerity programmes could prove problematic. The Assembly should send a clear signal that democracy and social rights should not be sacrificed on the altar of financial markets.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Let me stress the importance of this topic. The debate is timely, and will retain its relevance in the mid-term future and perhaps even in the long run – unfortunately, given that the problems do not seem to be easy to solve.

How did we get into a situation that is dangerous for democracy and human rights? Some European states were already heavily indebted before the crisis started. That was sometimes problematic and sometimes not, as was rightly pointed out by the rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. It makes quite a difference whether a debt is mainly foreign or mainly connected with a country’s own population and institutions. The problem of debt in terms of the function of national democracy is strongly correlated with the handing over of economic autonomy by a country to international financial institutions that request it in return for coming to the financial rescue, although much will depend on a country’s need to deal with such institutions.

The extent of the danger posed to respect for human rights – mainly socio-economic – depends mostly on the austerity measures that a country is forced to take. I welcome the committee’s decision to produce a separate report on the social risks of such measures.

In addition to existing debts, countries were confronted with the high public costs of rescuing financial institutions during the financial crisis and rapidly rising public expenditure as a result of the ensuing economic crisis, while tax revenues were lower than expected. My main point, however, is that the private sector and, specifically, the financial sector was responsible for the huge debts, and the public sector, and hence the taxpayer, must now clear up the mess.

Again, it is the financial markets that must ultimately decide whether austerity measures are tough enough – measures that cost taxpayers public services such as education, health care, and social benefits to which they would have been entitled had those measures not been taken. The financial markets are interested only in the size of the profit on the risks that they take, and in whether those risks are sufficiently lowered. That is the same kind of risk-taking that created the financial crisis in the first place. Stronger regulation of financial markets is the only possible solution.

I am very pleased with the last two proposed amendments that were agreed by the rapporteur and the committee’s rapporteur for opinion. I congratulate them both on the result of their cooperation, because it has made the report much stronger.

Mrs GROTH (Germany) said that the last comment had been interesting. Wages and salaries across the European Union had fallen but profits had increased. The rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. This was a threat to democracy. There should have been more in the report on military spending. In Germany, €100 million was spent every day on the military. How much had that contributed to the debt crisis? The possibilities for savings were great. There had been talk of cuts in health and education but that was to aim at the wrong target.

The report noted that there was a high risk of scapegoating. People not satisfied with high levels of taxation looked for scapegoats, and found them in refugees, the ill, and the weakest of society. In Hungary, the country holding the European Union presidency, armed guards and armed individuals were creating conflict. Such destructive confrontation had been seen before in history, for example in Nazi Germany and Russia. There should be a greater focus on this threat to democracy.

Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 10 a.m.

The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.said that the issue of inter-religious dialogue was important and it was necessary to discover new ways for diverse cultures to co-exist. Europe was, by definition, multicultural, multifaith and multi-linguistic and, therefore, to question the very principle of multiculturalism was to strike at the very heart of European culture. However, some powerful leaders within Europe were claiming that the multicultural model of society had failed. This was a step backwards. Multiculturalism was a given in contemporary Europe, although it was true that current social models had failed to provide the necessary conditions for social integration, mutual respect and understanding. European states were secular by nature and yet Churches had tried to intervene in various ways, for example, by supporting particular political parties or by demanding compulsory religious education in schools. This had resulted in conflict and was counterproductive. People should work together within a framework of mutual respect and, whilst there must be freedom of religion, religious leaders should also work together.

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) – Thank you for your contributions, gentlemen. It was very interesting to listen to all your speeches. I greatly appreciate your being here, because we need a dialogue. I know that, as a politician, I need a lot of knowledge about different religions and beliefs to be able to manage the different decisions that I have to be involved in when solving conflicts or finding solutions. That has to include everyone, which is why I have to ask you the same question as my colleague, Ms Christoffersen. If you will allow me, I would like to ask you why you think the Good Lord sent only men to take part in this dialogue? Half the people of the world are women, and human rights apply equally to everyone: men, women, people of different ethnicities, gays, lesbians – everyone. I know that it is difficult and challenging, but if we mean it, we have to face it.

I am very glad that you all underlined that. You all have a huge responsibility in your congregations to promote this work, because you are important in so many people’s lives. They listen to you; they take guidance from you. That is why it is so important for you to address equality for everybody. If you are to be involved in a dialogue, it is important that both sides should be included. In spite of the fact that human rights are universal, I have a clear impression that different religions’ convictions are slightly conservative, if I may put it that way, regarding equal rights for women and making them part of the dialogue not just on one side but on both sides. I think this is very important. It is also important for me to underline that sometimes human rights come into conflict: the conflict between religious belief and human rights for everyone. Sometimes we have to decide. I have to be clear that, for me, equal rights for everybody to be equal in society is the most important thing. I think it is also possible to enable religious congregations to make that a reality in their work.

Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 3 p.m.

Communication from Mr Davutoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Maltese nationals have no right to legally divorce at present. The Moldovan authorities contrive by all means to turn off the only opposition TV channel in our country. In Lithuania, the leader of one of the left opposition parties, Mr Paleckis, faces penal action for his political views and statements expressed in the media. In fact, the list of countries and recent violations extends even further. Of course, we are all different, but all member states of the Council of Europe have a common commitment to respect fundamental rights and freedoms. Minister, can we expect the Committee of Ministers to raise these issues at one of its meetings?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – This issue has not been raised before, but we are of course following events in Moldova very closely and trying to assist it to reach a solution on the ground

Combating poverty

Mrs WERNER (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left said that it was true that as Europe was becoming richer, poverty was becoming greater. Poverty was a result of the economic crisis, but had of course also existed before the crisis. In 2008, 42 million people were coping with extreme poverty. Europe was discussing solutions for the economic crisis, but austerity measures heightened poverty. Political will was needed to fight poverty. Economic policy should be on the right level, and politicians should focus on people’s needs. Investment in education was needed for both old and young. Certain categories of people were more at risk of poverty, such as minorities, women, the elderly, the disabled and single parent and large families. There was sometimes a stigma attached to asking for help. Not only material services, but social integration was needed. Governments must guarantee participation in anti-poverty measures without restrictions. A minimum wage was essential.

In Strasbourg, the socialists were united. Nationally, however, individual countries had different views. It was imperative to work together. In Germany, for example, Chancellor Merkel should reflect on the debate.

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) – I support the report. We are having a series of debates on these issues. Yesterday, we debated the dangers for democracy and human rights of the over-indebtedness of states, which is linked to this subject. We have also debated our responsibilities under the Social Charter. These debates have shown us that we need to take much greater political responsibility if we are to achieve the fairer redistribution of resources and political power, because that is the only solution if we are to deal with this matter. It is not about doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that; we have to think about this in new ways. Business as usual is not the solution.

We all know that huge social differences exist in health, education and all the other areas identified in the report. To deal with that, it is necessary to distribute resources in a fairer way. The optimistic view is that societies with smaller economic differences do better in every way: in health, in education and in regard to trust within society. They even do better economically. Such policies do not represent a threat; but provide real possibilities. We have a responsibility to support the political and social empowerment of underprivileged people, because they do not have the resources to fund lobbying for strong action against political parties or parliaments in order to promote their interests. It is therefore our responsibility to provide them with the resources to speak for themselves, because they cannot do so. It is better if they speak for themselves, and everyone wants to do that.

In every country, we are now seeing an ethnic dimension to poverty. It is very challenging, and we must deal with it firmly, because it is capable of fuelling dangerous tendencies in society that violate our obligations to all the European charters.

Mrs GROTH (Germany) said that she agreed with everything that had been said. The Lisbon strategy had been forgotten. Europe had agreed strategies to ensure it would become the most competitive market. European states had created more flexible markets, with increased working times and an increased retirement age. This had led to increased poverty, with the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. It was important to give thought to this: and ask who was at fault: the European Union or national governments? The Europe 2020 strategy mentioned more flexibility regarding working hours and a retirement age. This would lead to a similar outcome. There was an urgency which meant these issues must be addressed. Often, European policies were not popular within countries. These policies were forgotten until their results, such as increased wealth and increased poverty, were seen.

Wednesday 13 April 2011 at 10 a.m.

The honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – The report is well balanced and the draft resolution deserves our support. I congratulate the rapporteurs.

Several opposing dangers could have haunted the rapporteurs: on one side, the danger of completely forgetting and ignoring the tragic war between Georgia and Russia and its consequences, including the occupation of a big part of the country; and on the other, the danger of using the war as an excuse and explanation for any possible shortcomings in Georgia, thus excusing the Georgian authorities for whatever they do. The rapporteurs have avoided both. They mention the war and the negative impact that it had on the country, but at the same time they measure the country under monitoring standards in a fully objective way, with no allowances for the fact that there was a war.

There is always a danger of underestimating progress, or on the contrary of underestimating the remaining problems. Again, the rapporteurs have managed to strike the middle ground and reflect the complexity of the actual situation. The conclusion that the country is making progress but that further improvement is necessary before the monitoring procedure can come to an end is well substantiated by the analysis of the situation on the ground. The report justly notes significant progress made by Georgia in honouring most of her obligations and remaining commitments to the Council of Europe. However, the progress is not uniform in all fields and there are still several causes for concern. For example, the report notes that although Georgia’s media landscape continues to be an example for the region, regrettably, it has witnessed some negative developments recently.

As the report is thorough and well grounded in fact, and as the resolution is firmly based on the report, the Group of the Unified European Left supports the resolution. We urge the Georgian authorities to implement fully the actions proposed in the resolution. It is also vital that Georgia pursues the way forward to genuine democratic development and avoids any lure to mimicking it. True democratic development is necessary not only to finalise the monitoring procedure but even more for the sake of Georgia’s own people. That democratic development will show the way towards true democracy for Georgia’s neighbours. Democracy is not developed to please this institution – this institution is for developing democracy. Democracy is for the people.

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – When we discussed the report in the Monitoring Committee, I, like other members, feared that we would have another debate on the war between Georgia and Russia, and the occupation of the two provinces by Russia. However, so far, apart from one or two speeches, the Assembly has dealt with the report and the topic much more responsibly than we did in the Monitoring Committee, where we had a very difficult debate.

Our debate today is a good sign of the way in which the Assembly is dealing with such important matters. I disagreed with the previous speaker when he said that we should stop the monitoring process. I believe that monitoring democracy, human rights and the rule of law in our member states is the most important thing that we do.

The report is well balanced. It is not easy to prepare a report about a hotspot such as Georgia. It is important that, when we vote on the report, we follow the two rapporteurs’ advice on whether to accept the amendments.

There are some matters on which Georgia still needs to work. Some are mentioned in the report and some have been raised in the debate. My colleague, Paul Flynn, brought up some questions, as did other members. I hope that the rapporteurs will take account of those points and perhaps include them in their ongoing dialogue with the Georgian authorities.

Address by Mr Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – Mr Prime Minister, although, as you are aware, I cannot agree with your last remark, I, from the Group of the Unified European Left, sincerely congratulate you on the results of the vote in Turkey and on your work internationally. I agree with you that we should do our utmost to be on the side of democratic change. In respect of that, why have you not yet delivered on your promise to lower the 10% threshold in Turkey’s elections? That would be an important democratic change in Turkey. When will we witness the results of that promise?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Prime Minister, please reply.

Mr ERDOĞAN said that he did not necessarily expect members of the Assembly to agree with him, but he was stating the facts. He himself had been imprisoned in the past because he had recited a poem. He had been incarcerated for four months and on his release had gone on to establish a political party. That party had since won elections and had now been in power for eight and a half years with great popular support. The 10% threshold already existed when his party came to power and this, in itself, demonstrated that it was possible to set up a political party in Turkey and come to power in a short space of time despite the 10% rule.

His party governed from the political centre and embraced all parts of Turkish society, including the Roma people. The latter had recently been expelled from France and he questioned whether that represented democracy. In France there seemed to be no respect for freedom of religion and those who chose to judge Turkey should first look to themselves. The 10% threshold did not call Turkish democracy into question, and there were similar thresholds in operation across Europe today. For the security of Turkey, his administration had decided to continue with the 10% threshold and the people had agreed to this. Coalition government had previously caused problems in Turkey and he did not want to see that happen again. The Turkish Government would reduce the 10% threshold when the time was right but it was really a decision for the people. Turkey was now making progress: no political party was banned and anyone could choose to establish a party. His own political party did not represent any one region or ethnicity but covered the whole country and represented all Turkish people.

Wednesday 13 April 2011 at 3 p.m.

Statement by Mr HAMMARBERG, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) said that countries which received large numbers of refugees and migrants, such as Greece and Italy, were asking for a change in the Dublin II Regulation. Migrants were being confined to ghettos and there were marked increases in racial tensions and discrimination. How might the problem be better managed?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Hammarberg.

Mr HAMMARBERG – This is a problem that is very topical today. It is being discussed between governments, but also in the European Union structures. The Dublin II Regulation has broken down in relation to Greece, and our Court has established that sending asylum seekers back to Greece is not in line with the Convention, because, for the moment, the system in Greece simply does not work. Hopefully the system in Greece will be developed, so that Greece can play its part in fulfilling its responsibility.

However, I have some other questions when it comes to the Dublin II Regulation. I do not think that it fully meets the requirements of solidarity between the various countries of Europe. I mentioned in my presentation the need for responsibilities to be distributed fairly, but that is not happening when countries on the front line are having to take much more responsibility than other countries. We need a system in Europe to ensure that responsibilities are shared more fairly among the various countries. I am in touch with Commissioner Malmström quite often, and I am aware that she is trying to encourage a discussion about conducting a sensible review of the Dublin II Regulation. This has been difficult, but there is definitely a problem to address.

The need to assess progress in the implementation of the Bern Convention

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) rapporteur and Chair, of the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Committee.– This part-session is the last one in which I can address the parliamentarians here as colleagues. Regrettably, we, the Estonian Greens, lost the parliamentary elections. Among many other merits of democracy, one good thing is that from time to time, you get kicked out and have to go back to real life. It reminds you that change is inevitable, but change can be for good and for bad. One of the changes for bad for many years has been the long-term trend of biodiversity decline.

The Council of Europe recognised that threat more than three decades ago, and in 1979, the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats came into being. Like many other conventions, it is known by the place where it was signed – it is known as the Bern Convention. It was the first comprehensive legal instrument of pan-European nature conservation, and it remains the keystone treaty for the protection of biodiversity within the Council of Europe framework. It has helped to deal with biodiversity loss in Europe but regrettably it has not turned the tide. We need more effort here, colleagues.

There were initially 20 signatories to the convention, and it is important to note that the European Union, then the European Community, was among them. There are now 50 Contracting Parties, including all the member states of the Council of Europe except Russia and San Marino. I would thus call once again on the parliamentarians from those two countries to do their bit in order for their countries to accede to the convention. There are also four countries from North Africa among the Contracting Parties, which is worth noting given the current focus on the democratic revolutions there. While helping those countries in the hard process of transition to democracy, a process that we shall discuss tomorrow, we should also involve them in more active conservation of biodiversity. The Bern Convention might be an important tool in that regard.

As I said, the EU is a party to the convention, and so are all the EU member states. That results in a kind of double obligation for the EU countries. The EU has adopted two pieces of legislation, namely the birds directive and the habitats directive, as instruments to implement the convention. Those directives are actually better known than the convention itself. They transpose most of the requirements of the convention, and on some issues go beyond it. The EU countries are thus obliged to implement both the convention and the directives. While the implementation of the convention is secured by the relatively soft approach of the so-called case-file system, the EU legislation is backed up by a much stronger infringement procedure. That results in a somewhat more advanced state of implementation in the EU than in non-EU contracting parties, but of course nobody is perfect and the actual situation in the EU is far from perfect.

In relation to the EU, there is one more side of the story to be considered. The EU has recently recognised that it has not only obligations to conserve biodiversity within its own borders but a global responsibility for biodiversity. As we know, the EU is not the whole of Europe, but the directives apply only to the EU. That global responsibility should imply a pan-European approach as part of it. It is therefore imperative that the EU makes compliance with the Bern Convention a key part of its pan-European co-operation. However, there has been no officially confirmed understanding of that. Credit must be given to the EU, though, for financing some biodiversity-related activities in its eastern neighbours, but alas, that has been relatively marginal.

One of the most important provisions of the convention that was very innovative at the time of its adoption, is recognition of the importance of habitat protection. The EU habitats directive has developed into the Natura 2000 network of special areas of conservation. While there is no direct obligation of that kind in the convention, the complementary Emerald network has been established by resolutions and recommendations of the standing committee of the Bern Convention. We thus have the legal basis for a comprehensive pan-European ecological network. For the reasons given, this work is much more advanced in the EU, even though Natura 2000 is still far from ready, than in the non-EU Contracting Parties, where the Emerald network is mostly at a very rudimentary stage and some countries have proposed only a handful of sites. I will not name or shame anybody here but would like to give one exceptional positive example. Croatia has designated more than 40% of its national territory as proposed Emerald sites. I call on all of you to ask your national governments when they will follow that example. We need a truly representative pan-European ecological network to stop the decline of biodiversity in Europe. Let us do our bit.

Of course, having the network is only the first step. What really matters is how we manage the protected sites. Again, the rules in the EU habitats directive are more specific than those in the convention. Hence the standing committee has provided some guidance but even that is relatively general. Several case files are open in relation to the bad management of important sites. Again, I will not name and shame anyone but I urge colleagues to check whether everything is okay in your country and, if not, to put pressure on your governments to protect the sites properly.

Of course, we need to protect habitats diversity outside the designated sites. The standing committee of the Bern Convention has produced recommendations on the complex relationship between biodiversity and climate change as well as the need to integrate habitat diversity protection in all sectors from energy to agriculture to spatial planning. We have also stressed that in the Assembly. We need to translate the documents into political practice. Let us remember that sustainable development is possible only if we stop the decline of biodiversity. That is possible only if all sectors are made to respect this need.

These days, we are working towards a more focused Council of Europe. There is no doubt that our core business is human rights, democracy and, of course, the rule of law. However, we in this Assembly have adopted a recommendation that proposes a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to a healthy environment. There is no body other than this Assembly to take care of biodiversity on a pan-European level. We have the key tool for that – the Bern Convention. However, we also have some other tools, for example the landscape convention or the conference of the Ministers responsible for spatial planning. While fully appreciating the need for a cheaper and better co-ordinated system of work in the Council of Europe, we must take care that valuable activities for protecting our natural heritage and biodiversity will continue, even in modified form. The Bern Convention and biodiversity in Europe are part of our core business.

We need to ensure that the implementation of the Bern Convention and related activities to protect biodiversity on a pan-European scale will be treated as a priority in our Assembly, in the EU structures and by our governments. We need to have all the European countries as Contracting Parties and to consider enlarging the convention’s coverage in North Africa.

We need more active participation of the EU as a Contracting Party to the Bern Convention to help implementation on a pan-European scale. We need to step up the creation of pan-European ecological networks and improve the effectiveness of the protection of habitats and species throughout Europe.

The committed professionals working in the Assembly with the Bern Convention and other biodiversity related treaties are doing a good job. They need our political support to secure our common future.

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left congratulated the rapporteur on two counts: first, this was a very well put together report; secondly, he had been sensitive and careful in the committee’s work on the environment. He would leave an important body of work behind.

The Bern Convention had existed for 30 years now, and this report was about the application of the convention and the gaps in that application. It was unthinkable that members of the Council of Europe, the Russian Federation and San Marino, had not signed the convention. The Council of Europe should use the experience gained in member states to promote the means at their disposal, such as legislation for the protection of biodiversity. Europe should perhaps take the lead in this work.

Mrs Papadimitriou had talked about the loss of biodiversity and the progress being made, but that very loss of biodiversity showed not enough was being done. There should perhaps be a European initiative or a Bern Convention Mark II. There had been 12 years between the Bern Convention and the international convention signed in Rio de Janeiro, and given that countries were facing a very significant loss of biodiversity, in some part due to climate change, and that today, in a country as highly developed as Japan, there was a problem with a nuclear power station, there was more to be done. A French opinion poll had shown that there were widespread fears about a nuclear incident in France. These were vital issues and the Assembly should not adopt any amendments that might change the thrust of the report.

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) – Thank you, colleagues, for your kind words. I would like to support most of them and perhaps rectify some. First, I would like to acknowledge your support for the relationship between human rights and the environmental field, including biodiversity. This is part of our business. Secondly, thank you to those who mentioned the global biodiversity convention. It is younger than the Bern Convention and has more comprehensive coverage, both geographically and in its substance, but we can certainly regard the Bern Convention as the regional biodiversity convention for Europe. It is our tool; we have developed it and with it we can do our bit to protect biodiversity. It was rightly said that we have missed our biodiversity goals for 2010. We are now trying to improve on that in the biodiversity decade up to 2020. Again, let us do our bit, because this is not a logical problem. It is part of our survival strategy as a species not to kill all the other species, because if we did so we would die out ourselves.

There was a reference to the importance of change, including the possibility of changing the conventions. That is precisely what we are here to do, and what the report suggests. We may need to shift the status of some species and change protection status, but there will have to be a full-scale assessment of the situation on the ground before that is done.

Nature conservation is more an opportunity than an obstacle. Having lived and worked in a national park, I do not agree with the suggestion that protecting nature is somehow killing humans. Wrong decisions in nature conservation can do that, but in general, nature conservation itself does not.

Under the Bern Convention, we have guidance on wind energy and biodiversity. That is one of the issues to which the European Union has contributed, but we need to do more work. Although wind energy produces energy in a climate-sensitive way, but it must be developed appropriately.

Common hamsters are not as common a species as some might think – various species are not so common nowadays – but large carnivores, especially wolves, are one of the few real success stories in nature conservation. They are really coming back to Europe. This may mean that we will have to downgrade their protection status slightly, and perhaps that of other large carnivores, but I live in a country where we have a good many wolves, and it is possible to live with them. In countries such as mine it is necessary to hunt them to some extent, but I would encourage Switzerland to accept the wolves, although they may soon need not to be a fully protected species.

I did not want to name and shame anyone, but I did want to encourage more progress in regard to both access and implementation. As a very last thought, let me say that whatever we do in terms of reforming both the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly, it is important for pan-European environmental work, including work on biodiversity, not to be lost.

Education against violence at school

Mrs WERNER (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.said that violence in schools was a serious problem and the whole of society should play a part in its solution. Children who resorted to violence to settle arguments were often themselves victims of violence. School provision to address these behavioural issues was not always adequate and there might for example be a lack of classes in conflict management and of appropriate pastoral care. Education was vital, particularly to create opportunities and prospects for those on the fringes of society.

The report had identified a link between violence in school children and violence in the families in which they were brought up, often with a background which included unemployment and poverty. It had also identified a link between violence in schools and violence in society more generally. Violence on television was particularly influential. In Germany, the army visited schools to recruit children and encourage them towards a career as a soldier, but this institutionalised concept of using violence for one’s own ends was very worrying. It was possible to find manifestations of hate and discrimination against immigrants and an extreme example could be found in neo-Nazis distributing CDs in German playgrounds.

Violence was everywhere in and around schools. Solutions to this problem might include a ban on weapons, requiring teachers to lead by example, smaller class sizes, teacher training on dealing with violence, and appropriate courses for parents and grandparents. Further work was needed to address the issue of social exclusion, as a reduction in the incidence of the latter might contribute to a reduction in conflict and help children from diverse communities to learn to co-exist peacefully.

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) – I welcome the report. Violence in schools is violence against human rights, and we have a responsibility to ensure that children are safe and secure at school.

Mr Donaldson said that the problem of violent behaviour was greater in poor or single-parent families. I strongly disagree with that: it also affects children higher in society. It can happen anywhere, which makes it more important than ever for us to protect them when they are at school, on the way to school and at home.

The consequences for victims have been mentioned, and they are indeed severe, but surveys show that the consequences for the bullies are even worse. They often end up in jail doing stupid things and ruining their own lives and those of their families.

Children are entitled to attend schools without violence. That entitlement is conferred both by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, in Norway, by the Education Act. Every country should ensure that such protection is part of its education legislation. In Norway we have also launched a national strategy for better learning environments and developed extensive guidance to be used in schools, because it is difficult to take specific measures in law. As my colleague Mrs Graham said, we have an anti-bullying manifesto in Norway, which is a binding partnership. I have the last page of it here, and it is signed by the prime minister, by all the labour unions that are connected to schools, by the local government organisations and by parents’ organisations. They are all important stakeholders, and they have committed themselves to following up the anti-bullying manifesto. That is very important. We are also now inquiring as to whether to have an independent ombudsman for pupils in Norway.

We have a parliamentary group in Norway that is particularly concerned with children’s rights. In co-operation with Save the Children, for one day each year children from different schools can come to the parliament and ask questions to parliamentarians and ministers, who have to be there. Last year, bullying and violence in schools was their main theme. I can assure you that they gave us a lot of things to think about and a lot of good ideas to work on. That is a very good idea.

Finally, a lot of colleagues have mentioned violence in the entertainment business. I am glad to hear that, because I have talked about it a lot of times and people have said, “Oh, that old lady, she is just trying to take the fun away from us.” It is an important matter because both good and bad experiences do something to us. If adults are not willing to abstain themselves, it will not help, because children learn from what we do and not from what we say.

Safeguarding children and young people from obesity and type 2 diabetes

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) – I support the report, which is important. I commend Mrs Debono for the action that has been taken on creating a eco-society. That was useful information and good work.

I take the floor mainly to ask about Amendment 3, which talks about, “Action in favour of more flexible working hours.” That wording is very political. In Norway, when we discuss flexible working hours, we mean longer working hours – working nights, late evenings, early mornings – and it is therefore very political. I would like some clarity on the amendment. Often, the women are flexible and the men have steady work and therefore the pension. We must avoid creating a policy whereby women are told to go back home and be flexible or else the children will suffer. The amendment needs clarifying.

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 10 a.m.

Urgent debate: the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– The Group of the Unified European Left will support the report and the draft resolution. This is important work. It should be emphasised that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right which should not be suspended owing to mistakes, problems or pressures in particular circumstances. We must deal with the situation, and it is important that in doing so we adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We read in yesterday’s International Herald Tribune that immigration was rattling European cohesion. It is also wise to remind ourselves, as the rapporteur did, of what Commissioner Hammarberg told us yesterday: there is pressure on Malta and Lampedusa, and on countries in that region which, for other reasons, contain a large number of refugees. However, in comparison with neighbouring countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, as well as other countries in the world, Europe has a minor problem, and we must deal with it.

For that reason, I will ask the Secretary General and the President of the Assembly, and the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe, to take initiatives as soon as possible to identify a body that will deal with the sharing of responsibility that is mentioned in the report. That important tool must be established in all European countries, not just the European Union. Rich countries such as mine, which is not in the European Union, must share responsibility along with everyone else.

I thank the rapporteur for addressing the root causes of the migration, because they too must be dealt with. It should also be emphasised that everyone must support the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is doing a great deal of work to help refugees in their region of origin. That work is beyond what was arranged in the deal between Berlusconi and Gaddafi. This is about supporting people and enabling them to stay in nearby regions.

The European Council and, now, the European Parliament have asked for a change in the Dublin Regulation. Although that may be important and necessary, it may also take a long time. There are things that we must do in order to deal with the situation immediately.

Current affairs debate: the situation in northern Africa

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – At the Standing Committee meeting in Paris, we had our first current affairs debate – called at the initiative of the UEL, but supported by all groups – on how the Council of Europe should relate to the emerging democracies in North Africa and the Middle East. Today we continue that important debate.

History is being written in our neighbouring countries, through the brave acts of citizens who have decided to end the decades-long era of authoritarian rule over their countries by regimes that, far too often and for far too long, were supported by too many of our European governments. This fact should make us humble when defining our new relations with these emerging democracies. The days of colonialism and imperialism are over. It is now the people themselves who are drawing a road map to a better future, albeit not a future that is clear yet, as we see in Libya, Yemen and Syria, to mention a few.

Many dictators have not yet got the message that they now belong to history and that the future belongs to others. History is being written in the Arab world – partly in slogans, songs, poems and people peacefully marching in the streets of their countries, but unfortunately also partly in blood. I propose that we in this Assembly should today commemorate all those brave citizens who have given their lives in the Arab spring for democracy, human rights and the rule of law – values that the Council of Europe shares with them.

To those involved we should show our sympathy, solidarity and support. I welcome the concrete efforts of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission. They have offered our experience and expertise to the new governments and emerging parliaments in the region. I hope that the Presidential Committee’s visit to Tunisia next week will also show our willingness to support the Arab spring. One of the other things that we can now offer is a Partnership for Democracy with our Assembly. The parliaments of Morocco and Palestine were the first to apply for this special relationship with us, parliamentarians from the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Perhaps Tunisia and Egypt could follow their example. It is up to them, but we should be ready to receive their requests.

I am glad that our initiative in Paris has led to a fully-fledged report on our relationship with the emerging democracies in North Africa and the Middle East. I am looking forward to the report that Jean-Charles Gardetto will draft for presentation in our June part-session.

History is being written, yet the outcome is not clear – not in Egypt, not in Tunisia and especially not in Libya. While NATO planes are bombing Libya to curtail Colonel Gaddafi – France and the UK even want to step up the efforts of those involved in the military action – the African Union, Arab League and Turkish Government are trying to negotiate a cease-fire. On behalf of the UEL, I urge NATO to stop the bombing, now that the no-fly zone has been achieved. We should remember that the United Nations urged us to protect Libyan civilians, not to arm them or function as their air force.

I applaud the African, Arab and Turkish initiatives to reach a negotiated agreement, so that Libyan citizens can also be entitled write their own future, no longer in blood, but in peaceful steps towards a democratic society. It is spring time in the Arab world; it is happening here and now. Let us wish the people there lots of success and offer them any support we can.

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 3 p.m.

The death penalty in Council of Europe member and observer states – A violation of human rights

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – I thank Mrs Wohlwend for her ongoing work and her report. I also thank Mr Zaragoza for his continuing work and for being here today to take part in our debate.

The fight against the death penalty is one of the Council of Europe’s greatest successes. From a few member states after the Second World War, the idea spread throughout Europe, even though some member states did not say a final goodbye to a barbaric punishment. We must demand that member states finally abolish the death penalty and not just have a moratorium.

Some states still claim that taking the lives of their citizens is necessary to fight crime, but the European experience shows that it is unnecessary to use mediaeval methods to create a secure society for everybody. On the contrary, there seems to be a direct connection between the cruelty of the punishments that a country uses and difficulty in preventing and fighting crime – not the other way around, as is often claimed.

The right to life is the most fundamental of fundamental human rights. The fight against the death penalty must go on. I urge the Committee of Ministers to co-operate with the Assembly to place the dialogue with Belarus on a new footing. We need a road map for Belarus, to bring the last country in Europe back into the European family in the Council of Europe. However, such a road map must never compromise fundamental human rights. We must do our best to help the people of Belarus build a country that has democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

The same subject should be on the agenda in our dialogue with observer countries. Again, I urge the Committee of Ministers to put pressure on the United States and Japan in particular. Two rich countries with highly educated populations have no excuse for using mediaeval methods such as the death penalty.

Strengthening torture prevention mechanisms in Europe

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – I thank the rapporteur for this report. The fight against torture is an ongoing struggle; therefore, it is important that we in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe support the work of the CPT. By supporting its work, we also support the Council of Europe in one of its most central tasks: defending human rights.

The main problem is that member states seem to ignore the CPT’s reports. A clear example of this is a public statement concerning Greece from 15 March this year – which I have here – and I am afraid that it is not the only example. In it, we read that, since 1997, Greece has been the subject of very strong reports from the CPT concerning conditions for illegal immigrants and imprisoned persons. Every year from 2005 to 2011, the same conditions have been observed and criticised. Greece has promised to adopt measures, but in January this year the CPT noticed that nothing had been done and that the conditions were even worse. It is all to be read in this public statement concerning Greece.

Why does the CPT produce all these reports if nobody reacts to them? I fear that Greece is not the only example. Has the Committee of Ministers even read the CPT’s reports on Greece and other member states? Has it ever discussed them or followed up on countries’ responses to them? If the Committee of Ministers and member states choose to behave in that way, then nothing that we in this Assembly do can strengthen the fight against torture. I accuse the Committee of Ministers of ignoring the important work of the CPT, thereby accepting torture and contributing to the growing pile of cases before the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg. I want an answer: what has been done about these reports?

I remind the Assembly that when our governments co-operate with the authorities in countries that use torture or when they use information from such countries – for example, in the fight against terror – they are setting back the fight against both terror and torture. We should remember that we as national parliamentarians have a duty back home to follow up on all the nice words that we use down here.

Friday 15 April 2011 at 10 a.m.

Water – a source of conflict

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left said that as a Greek he was alive to the extreme importance of this issue. Delegates were all aware that they were dealing with a limited resource. Access to water was a basic human right and everyone should support the proposal for an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. This went hand in hand with existing rights. Members should not only back the report, but also lobby ministers at home to put the various proposals and ideas into practice and ensure that these became a reality. Members of the committee of course had a special part to play. Water should remain a source of life and not a source of tension.

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) – As the outgoing chairman of the committee, I thank Mr Marquet for his commitment to the water cause. I thank you all for contributing to this debate, especially Mr Chope – not because I agreed with what he said, but because without some disagreement, we cannot have a proper debate. Indeed, the issues that he raised provoke me to reiterate a few points. The first is about whether this debate is part of our core business. This Assembly has said that the right to a healthy environment is a human right, and that is especially clear when it comes to water. I am a biologist, but you do not need to be a biologist to understand how quickly human beings die without water.

We have been discussing the right to life, which is important. This debate is also closely related to the situation in Africa and the influx of refugees that we have been discussing. Therefore, explicitly stating that a right to water is a human right would help. Nobody would consider limiting people’s right to free expression for economic reasons, but we still consider it possible to limit people’s right to water for economic reasons. Therefore, it is important to state that a right to water is a human right. We would need to discuss later whether we should have a pan-European convention, to provide a framework at the European level. When we return home, we also need to be more active when it comes to domestic policies on water, as well as at the international level.

As the outgoing chairman, I would like, as the final part of my long farewell, to thank the secretariat of the committee and all the members for their work, and once again, all those who have participated in this debate.

Unaccompanied children in Europe: issues of arrival, stay and return

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – I thank Mrs Reps for a splendid report. She has done a wonderful job on it and the 15 points that it contains pin down exactly what is needed. I am a bit surprised, however, that this is almost the last item on the agenda, and that the last item is about migrant women. It seems that, in this Assembly, women and children are always last. Mr President, I think that you should bring this matter up in the Bureau, because every debate about women’s or children’s rights is late on the agenda when the Chamber is either half empty or almost completely empty. It is important to bring that matter up because the human rights of minors is a central issue for the Council of Europe. If that does not require a strong focus, I do not know what does.

As the rapporteur said, children are treated very differently in our member states. In my country, I have heard politicians saying that unaccompanied children are arriving there as “agents” for their village. They say that first the children will come, then their family will come and then the whole village will come. Throughout history, parents have sent their children away to a safer place. During the Second World War, one of my best friends was sent to London by her family in order to survive. After the war, she was the only one left in her family. If they had not sent her to London, she would have died with the rest of them. Perhaps that might have been better for her, because she felt very alone and that she had somehow betrayed her family. Still, she was alive.

We need to examine how we treat unaccompanied children, and to talk about what we do with them when they reach the age of 18. If a child has been in a country since they were, say, 12 years old, it is not fair to kick them out simply because they have reached 18 and send them to a place that they do not know. I support the report, and I hope that everyone else will do so.

Protecting migrant women in the labour market

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population This is again the last but I hope not the least item for debate in this part session. Mr Mignon promised me that this debate would be moved to earlier on the agenda and would have a higher priority in this Assembly than the one it has now. It is embarrassing that questions about migrant women, the most vulnerable group in Europe, and about children, who we have just debated, are dealt with as the last items on the agenda.

I thank everybody who has contributed to the work of this report. The staff of the Council of Europe have been a great help. The London office of the International Organization for Migration has done a lot of work for us and facilitated a lot of our important meetings. The networks and the NGOs helped us with information. I thank the European Trade Union Confederation, the International Domestic Workers’ Network and other groups that we met and officials and representatives of governments, local authorities and so on in London. I also thank the rapporteur from the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Ms Circene, for her opinion, and I thank the committee for the amendments that it has made.

Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are the central questions that are discussed in the Council of Europe. What could be more central than protecting migrant women in the labour market? As the report states, the United Nations now estimates that more than 50% of the 69 million migrants in Europe are women. This could be seen as a problem, but it can in a way also be seen as a victory. To a larger and growing extent, women are now taking their lives in their own hands. They are not just waiting for what their husbands or families are going to do. They are trying to find work. They are looking for happiness. They are looking for opportunities on their own initiative. However, as always, rules and regulations are lagging behind the real world. Women’s legal status is still connected to their husbands. Migrant women are still connected to their husbands and families. Their rights and opportunities are connected to their husband’s and families’ situations.

Migrant women do jobs that are traditionally women’s jobs: domestic work, childcare, health care, cleaning and catering. All these jobs have long hours and low pay. That is why the report asks our governments to support work for a new International Labour Organisation convention on housework in order to make these jobs more secure for migrant women and for others. Even highly educated women are often forced to take low-skilled jobs. This means that they lose their competence, waste their education and lose the opportunities that their education had given them. We have to look into how women can keep their competence if they migrate.

The financial crisis and cuts in public expenditure have meant a decline in opportunities for and the situation of migrant women. Women are already at the bottom of society. If we cut public expenditure, women are hit, especially migrant women. That is why we have to focus on this question. We have to focus especially on the situation of women in the labour market and in migration. We have to focus on access to information, on the independent status of women and on women’s rights.

That is the end of my introduction because I hope you have all read the report. If there are questions, I will answer them at the end of the debate.

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I thank Mrs Frahm for an excellent report. It is very topical, because it deals with the principles of universal human rights. It concerns migrants and it concerns women. When there is a financial crisis, and when many relatively rich countries and people are not willing to pay decent salaries for decent work, the problems of migrant women are fuelled.

I strongly support the proposal to establish an ILO convention on the rights of domestic workers. The position is unregulated in many countries, and migrant women are among the most exploited and abused workers in the world. My colleague Mr Gross asked why there were so few good examples to cite. Sadly, it is true that there are no good examples of regulation that works in practice. Many countries have laws. In Norway, the law relating to decent working conditions applies to everyone. However, women who do domestic work are not seen. They are not seen by the labour unions: they cannot find them. They are not seen by the labour inspectors: they cannot find them. It is important for us to support organisations that support these women, because they exist and they are important. It is also important for them to have separate legal status.

My Norwegian colleague, Ms Woldseth, mentioned the problems of migrant women who must remain in abusive marriages. Norwegian men find love, or a woman, in Russia, Thailand or the Philippines. Those women come to Norway and must remain in abusive marriages for three years to obtain separate legal status. That is a major problem for immigrant women, and they are totally alone.

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – There have been some questions about good examples. I think that, apart from women who are directly recommended for jobs for the well educated, there are very few such examples. My Norwegian colleague Mrs Andersen mentioned housework, and Andreas Gross raised similar issues. The lack of status for migrant women is a problem: they do not exist in our statistics. They are totally isolated. My other Norwegian colleague, Ms Woldseth, mentioned language classes. Unfortunately, such women often have no opportunity to go out and take such classes, because they have no free time when the classes are taking place. Moreover, the cost of classes is rising. In my country, it is now so expensive to join a language class that I fear that very few people will be able to obtain permits to stay after the initial period, because they do not know the language of the country concerned.

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – There is not much to say, except that I am happy that you received the report so kindly. I am also happy that you support the suggestions in it, especially on the ILO convention. I agree with my Norwegian colleague’s comments on that and on access to language courses. I also remind members of the importance of access to legal aid. Being recognised as an individual is important, too.

I remind all members that there is a difference between integration and assimilation. So far, I think we have been on the right side of that debate.

We have been under great time pressure in preparing the report. When I was named rapporteur, I thought that I would have two years, but I think we had two months. If we had had two years, we could have provided more examples and more studies. However, in two months, I think we still managed to do a job of which the Assembly can be proud. I thank my colleagues from the staff of the Council of Europe and the others whom I have already mentioned.