Speeches, January session 2010

Monday 25 January 2010 at 11.30 a.m.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left). – I should start by saying muchas gracias, Señor Presidente Lluís Maria, for leading this Assembly in the past two years. I learned a lot from you just as others have said they learned a lot from you. I thank and congratulate you on three major results in the past three months. First there was the ratification of Protocol No. 14, which was a big issue for this Assembly. Thanks to you, the Assembly, the Secretary General and the Russian Federation, we succeeded. I congratulate you on that.

I also congratulate you on the decision of the Court of Human Rights on the election of judges. That was a great success for this Assembly. We should be very proud of it, and you did your utmost. Thirdly, you succeeded in closing the ongoing debate on the election of a Secretary General now, and you opened the debate on the election of a Secretary General in the future. We should do that in a better way and I hope that we convinced the Committee of Ministers that it has to play its part in the deal.

On the other hand, there have been not only successes but major worries. The major worries of my group, the Unified European Left, concern Turkey and Moldova. This morning, I decided not to insist that there should be an urgent debate on the recent developments in Turkey. Nevertheless, we have great worries about the banning by the Constitutional Court of the DTP – the Turkish Democratic Society Party. There had already been the bad experience of the threat of the AK Party – the Justice and Development Party – being banned. Now a party has really been banned. That is a shame for a democracy. We have great worries about the intervention of Turkey’s Constitutional Court in the Turkish military in respect of the new law. We have great concerns about how the Government of Turkey is not dealing with great social unrest. For example, many people working in the tobacco industry are on strike against the privatisation of that industry. I agree that we should not have an urgent debate about this, but I hope that the Monitoring Committee is stepping up its efforts to tell the Turkish Parliament and the Turkish Government that the country is not on the right track. If the country wants to become a real democratic country, it has to change its policy on these matters. I look forward to seeing what the Monitoring Committee is going to do.

Our other main concern is Moldova. This morning I did not challenge the credentials of the Moldovan delegation, although I think there is something really wrong with the composition of that delegation. I thought, however, that it would be more fruitful not to challenge their credentials once again, but to get the matter referred to the rules committee. The bureau accepted that. In the rules committee we can see what the phrase about fair representation of all political forces means. If the main opposition party, which is good for 50% of the vote, is not fairly represented in a delegation, then there is something rotten. We should change that.

Thank you, Mr President, for being with us and leading this Organisation. Perhaps you can comment on some of the remarks that I have made.

Monday 25 January 2010 at 3.p.m.

Address by Ms Micheline Calmy-Rey, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Mr KOX (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) - I am glad to hear that President Barroso told you that access to the European Convention on Human Rights for the European Union would be a priority and would move forward fast, but, given that EU language is not always entirely clear, will you tell us what “priority” means and what “fast” means? Lisbon took 10 years. Has any timetable been agreed between the Committee of Ministers and President Barroso?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Ms Calmy-Rey to answer.

Ms CALMY-REY said that it was clear that the European Union decision on the European Convention of Human Rights was very important. When it was accepted, it would create a single legal area for Europe. The Committee of Ministers would do everything possible for the accession process to move forward rapidly.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) -In another capacity, you have awarded the Nobel prize to another politician for having good plans. You will have to wait for some time to be nominated by the Assembly. I compliment you on your plans, but I hope that we shall be able to measure you by the results that you achieve. One of those results could be fast securing of EU access to the European Convention on Human Rights, which you described as an historic step. Ms Calmy-Rey also referred to that, but refused to answer when I asked what “fast” meant. Have you any timetable?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to reply, Mr Jagland?

Mr JAGLAND, Secretary General. – As for the award, Brzezinski, the former White House security adviser, wrote an excellent article in Foreign Affairs listing the things that he had done to which the press had not referred. You, too, should listen to what I say that I have already done, and to what I say will be done immediately.

There will be immediate changes in the structure of the Secretariat so that we can obtain the necessary political tools. When the Committee of Ministers discusses the 2011 budget in April, it will already have a new budget tool enabling the budget to be properly understood. That is a precondition for the identification of priorities. Immediate measures have been taken and will be taken, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. They will take some time to implement, but not years, and not even many months. A report process means starting immediately, not just having plans. It is necessary to get the train moving so that everyone can see it.

Tuesday 26 January 2010 at 10 a.m.

The situation in the Middle East

Mr LECOQ (France, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) said that he supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. A two-state solution was needed in the region. The longer the conflict dragged on, the less likely it was that that peace would be achieved. He wondered how many people would have to die before there was peace in the region. Poverty and injustice in the area helped extremists, and the people of Gaza were victims of these circumstances.

The walls constructed by Israel did not prevent bombs. Israel had a right to peace but the settlements resulted in a breeding ground for terrorism in the region. To paraphrase President Obama: yes, we could have a two-state solution. The two states needed to sit side by side in peace.

Address by Mr Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece, on behalf of the Group of the United European Left) said that for years there had been support for Turkey joining the European Union but there were still difficulties in Turkey with regard to human rights and the law. The Prime Minster had written to Mr Erdoğun, the Prime Minister of Turkey, about possible territorial claims made to the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Papandreou to answer.

Mr PAPANDREOU said that in his letter to Mr Erdoğun he had referred to the need to assess relations between Greece and Turkey in the past decade. Ten years ago, a dialogue had been opened between Greece and Turkey, focusing on their common interests. A decision had been made about support for Turkey’s membership of the European Union. Trade relations between the countries had increased: 10 years ago trade was worth several million euros, now it was worth €3.5 billion. There had also been agreements in strategic areas such as energy, although bilateral arrangements were still not completely satisfactory. He hoped that a joint solution could be found through the International Court of Justice to resolve issues such as incursions into Greek airspace. A better relationship between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus was also needed. He had invited Mr Erdoğun to Greece and hoped that it would be possible to make some progress.

Tuesday 26 January 2010 at 3 p.m.

Address by Mr Frattini, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy

Mr KOX (Netherlands, behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left). – According to respected international organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists, the diversity of news coverage in your country is being threatened because a vast part of the media is under the direct or indirect control of the government or of the Prime Minister himself. Do you believe that those conclusions are correct? If not, why not? If so, is Italy violating the European Convention on Human Rights, and what can we expect your government to do to end the violation of that important convention?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer Mr Frattini?

Mr FRATTINI (Italy) said that it was obvious that there was a free press in Italy. That was demonstrated by its critical reporting of the government – it did what it wanted. That freedom would continue to be respected.

Action against trafficking in human beings: promoting the Council of Europe Convention (Document 12096)

Mr KOX (Netherlands, behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) – I, too, congratulate the rapporteur on a fine report. The Group of the Unified European Left agrees that action against the trafficking of human beings should be given the highest political priority in all our member states. We ended legal slavery in the 19th century; now, in the 21st century, it is high time that we ended all forms of the illegal slavery that we call the trafficking of men, women and children for the purposes of migration, prostitution and the exploitation of children. We must bear in mind that each year, worldwide, international trafficking has 800 000 victims to whom, in the 21st century, the ending of slavery in the 19th century means nothing. We should be proud of what we did in the 19th century, but we should also be very ashamed that, in the 21st century, we still have so many forms of illegal slavery.

The committee and the rapporteur say that the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings is an effective means of preventing trafficking, and appeal to the Committee of Ministers to act. I strongly agree. Our Ministers should now put our money where their mouth was in Warsaw in May 2005. As the committee has said, and as John Prescott made clear, the convention must now be signed and ratified. We must close the gap between what our Ministers wanted in 2005 and what our governments and parliaments have so far not delivered. Too many parliaments and governments did not sign, ratify or deliver. According to the rapporteur, six countries have still not signed and 15 have not ratified. That means that almost 50% of our member states have not taken the necessary action, and I agree with John Prescott that it is shameful. I will call on all the members of my group to address the issue at home, which is where the decision must be made, but we must do the same in our national delegations. The good news is that, although John Prescott said that the Netherlands had not ratified, happily – although, of course, far too late – the Dutch Senate ratified the treaty on 22 September last year. That is not something to be proud of, because we waited too long, but we did it nevertheless.

The call to the European Union to accede to the convention is a wise move. We could perhaps add that that accession should be given high priority and should take place fast, using the terms that were used by the Chair of the Committee of Ministers in respect of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. If the European Union can accede to this convention, that too will be a major step forward.

Wednesday 27 January 2010 at 10 a.m.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

Mr LECOQ (France, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) said that the report was courageous. The work on definitions was, in particular, very important. To deny human rights on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity was unacceptable. Those whose sexual orientation or gender identity were different to societal norms were confronted with prejudice and negative stereotyping. This lead to inequality. Those in poverty often felt this injustice most acutely in the form of physical and verbal violence. While the law must protect customs, it must also be used as a way to change customs to prevent discrimination. Recently, a lesbian in France was prevented from adopting a child, even when single heterosexual women were permitted to adopt. Such cases must come to an end. It was important that sexual identity differences were recognised and accepted.

Judicial corruption

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) said that the issue that the Assembly was debating was a very serious one, which affected all societies. Corruption was like a mirror reflecting society. He agreed with the proposals put forward by the report. He wanted to draw attention to the fact that those countries identified as suffering from corruption were in the process of implementing mechanisms to tackle the problem.

The eurobarometer report into attitudes of Europeans towards corruption found that 78% of Europeans regarded corruption as a problem in their country. This was an indicator of the severity of the problem. There were international conventions and codes that dealt with judicial corruption, but those were not enough. It was necessary to foster a culture in which corruption would not be tolerated. The cost of participating in the judicial system created an inequality between citizens as some lacked the resources to allow them to be adequately represented. There needed to be incentives and motivators to prevent corruption. It was necessary to identify the root cause of corruption as part of the fight against organised crime.

Wednesday 27 January 2010 at 3 p.m.

Freedom of religion and other human rights for non-Muslim minorities in Turkey and for the Muslim minority in Thrace (Eastern Greece)

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece, on behalf of the Unified European Left) congratulated the rapporteur on an excellent and balanced report, and said that, while religious freedom was a thorny issue, the Group of the Unified European Left was convinced that all minorities should have their rights guaranteed. The report should be carried unanimously and without those amendments which had been submitted for narrow, political reasons.

Greece had recently introduced a policy of positive discrimination in order to attract more representatives from minority faiths, such as Islam, into its civil service. The Greek Government was hopeful that Turkey would introduce similar measures.

The new President of the Parliamentary Assembly had the opportunity to move the debate on democracy and human rights forward, and this report was an important step in that process.

Respect for media freedom

Mr KOX (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left). – As the rapporteur stated, without media freedom it is impossible to protect and develop our core values. Therefore, we guarantee media freedom in the United Nations. There is the declaration of human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and media freedom is also guaranteed in all our national constitutions. That is the theory, but in practice there are far too many violations and breaches of media freedom. The report is only a modest summary, as the rapporteur said, and many more worrying developments could be added to it. Since 2007, 20 journalists have been killed in Europe and many more have been attacked, threatened and blacklisted. In recent years, all media have frequently come under attack from prosecutors, politicians, criminals and governments.

In the past decade, there has been a worrying decline in the quality of news and other information, and it has become a commodity. News and information are for sale on the news market, obeying the laws of the market instead of adhering to professional standards and ethics. I wonder whether the rapporteur might elaborate on this topic when he comes to reply.

Summaries tend to leave things out; that is natural. However, some might exploit that as an opportunity to say, “We are not mentioned; we’ve done nothing wrong.” Let us consider recent events in Moldova. The report rightly mentions what went wrong under the former government, but although we now have a new government, breaches of media freedom are continuing. Perhaps the rapporteur would elaborate on that as well.

I want to mention two issues of great concern to my group, the UEL: there is a lot of violence against journalists and the media in Russia at present; and, in Italy, there are worrying attempts by the government and the prime minister to gain control over the media. The UEL appeals to the government and authorities in Russia to step up their efforts to protect journalists, to respect free media and to bring those who abuse journalists and media freedom to justice. Up until now, the record of the government and prosecutors in Russia is not good enough, and we urge our Russian colleagues in the Assembly to help to restore media freedom in their country, because that is the best way to protect their democracy. In Italy, we urge the government to turn away from the wrong ambition of concentrating ever more media under the control of the government and its prime minister. Mr Frattini said here yesterday that there was nothing wrong in Italy because the country has so many newspapers, but he forgot to mention that most of the broadcasting stations are now under the control of the government.

Finally, let me offer some good news. The Netherlands is also mentioned in the report. A journalist there was facing the threat of prosecution in a case involving the secret service. Today’s newspaper reports that the prosecution has had to withdraw from that case. Therefore, that journalist at least is again free to do her work, and I congratulate her on that.

Thresholds and other features of electoral systems which have an impact on representativity of national parliaments in Council of Europe member states and increasing women’s representation in politics through the electoral system

Mr LECOQ (France, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left) welcomed the report, and said that the Council should be concerned about the rise in abstentions in the elections in some European countries, with turn-out in some cases falling to just 20%.

The lack of gender equality in politics meant that many women in society felt under-represented. Only quotas could help to achieve greater equality in circumstances where the number of women candidates was not increasing naturally. However, it appeared that political parties generally preferred financial solutions as a means of increasing the number of women being elected because they believed them to be more effective.

The route towards equality was undoubtedly an arduous one, but it was time to build on the progress that had already been made.

Thursday 28 January 2010 at 10 a.m.

What can Europe do for Haiti?

Mr KOX (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left). – Thirty seconds is the length of time that we allow ourselves here in the Assembly to ask one question of a Minister or head of government. Yet 30 seconds is also how long it took to end the lives of more than 150 000 inhabitants of Haiti, to wound many more of them, and to make hundreds of thousands of them homeless. In that 30 seconds, Haiti also lost more than 60% of its gross domestic product, thereby making the future of those who survived even more poor and miserable than it already was before those 30 seconds on 12 January. Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, has once again suffered greatly.

We cannot blame mother earth for her earthquakes; they are a part of the planet’s nature. However, although we cannot prevent earthquakes from happening, we can protect ourselves against their effects; some countries take steps to do that, which is why earthquakes tend to cause the most damage in poorer countries. When we help to rebuild Haiti, therefore, we should bear in mind the point that although we cannot prevent earthquakes, we can prevent their effects.

Earlier this week in Montreal, the international community met to co-ordinate aid and the relief campaign for Haiti, and we made the promise that we would help Haiti rebuild itself. The world community showed solidarity, as have the citizens of many countries. In the United States, for example, 45% of families have already donated money to help Haiti. In my country of the Netherlands, families also donated, and in one day of the campaign they pledged more than €40 million. We are witnessing a worldwide wave of solidarity, and that should give us a proud feeling. Even after 25 years of neo-liberalist promotion of egotism, mankind has not lost its fundamental belief in the need for solidarity.

Soon, there will be an international donor conference, and we must hope that it will be as successful as it needs to be. We must also hope that the rebuilding of Haiti will be a genuine worldwide campaign, under the leadership of the United Nations. We must prevent this from turning into a competition between nations and governments, as my colleague in the Group of the Unified European Left, Patrick le Hyaric, said in the European Parliament. I am happy that US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said “It’s important that we see ourselves as partners with Haiti and not patrons.” I support Mr Vitali’s proposal that we should think about ways to intervene more quickly to help countries that suffer the effects of a disaster.

The world community, the United Nations, the United States, Latin America, the European Union, Japan and China must provide the money and the means to rebuild Haiti, and they must also relieve it from the burden of its foreign debts, as proposed by my colleagues in the European Parliament. Some positive steps have already been taken, but Haiti’s total debt is $890 million, while only $214 million have so far been cancelled. It is no use giving Haiti money while keeping its debt in place.

Mr President, we, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, can contribute most by helping to rebuild the social and political infrastructure of Haiti. We have shown our capability over recent decades by helping the new democracies of eastern Europe to build new structures that allowed them to develop. We do not have the money, but we do have the skill and the means to contribute to this important part of the task.

My Group of the United European Left proposes that this Assembly, working together with the Committee of Ministers as well as, of course, the Government of Haiti, produces an action plan to rebuild the social and political infrastructure of the country. As I said, we have particular means and skills that we developed to help the eastern European countries in the past.

We suggest that the Bureau and the Presidential Committee meet as soon as possible with the Committee of Ministers to get this action plan going. That is needed every bit as much as the millions that the world is donating to Haiti. We can rebuild the physical infrastructure, but if we do not rebuild the political and social infrastructure, it will all be in vain. If we want to protect the citizens of poor Haiti from a new disaster in future, the country needs a far better social and political infrastructure. Let us do our utmost as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to provide the country with that sort of aid. Thank you.

Detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe

Mr LECOQ (France, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.) said that he welcomed the excellent work done by Mrs Mendonça. Irregular migrants and asylum seekers were not criminals. Administrative detention removed the liberty of people who had committed no crime but were often just looking for a better life.

The way asylum seekers and irregular migrants were treated was often used as a deterrent. That was not right: they should be treated as human beings. The European Union “return” directive, adopted in order to harmonise conditions across Europe, provided for a maximum length of detention for asylum seekers and irregular migrants of 18 months. People should not be held for so long when they had committed no crime. The facilities in which people were placed during administrative detention were not designed for that purpose. There was no difference between those facilities and prisons or police cells. Specially built facilities, with decent conditions, were needed to house people who had been placed under administrative detention.

People should understand that, whether or not they were granted the right to stay, they would be treated as fully fledged human beings. It was important to bear in mind that asylum seekers had done nothing wrong. It was therefore not right to hold them in facilities with criminals or to lock them up simply for fleeing persecution. Asylum seekers should not be placed in administrative detention. Irregular migrants were fleeing poverty and poor living conditions. Even if they had crossed a border illegally, they were not criminals and administrative detention should be used only as a last resort. Countries should be looking for alternatives to administrative detention.

Thursday 28 January 2010 at 3 p.m

Solving property issues of refugees and displaced persons

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus, on behalf of the Group of the United European Left) said that Cyprus had confronted this issue when Turkey had occupied Cyprus in the 1970s; and it remained a live issue because of the situation in the Balkans. Since it involved human rights, it was shameful that members of the Council of Europe were involved in the illegal occupation of property. The European Court of Human Rights had called for restitution of property and payment of damages. Despite these rulings, illegal occupation of property continued. Although a peaceful solution should be sought, an end to occupation was essential; and failure to bring occupation to end should lead to sanctions. The right to property was a fundamental human right. The Council of Europe should help refugees and displaced persons return to their homes.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Albania

Mr LAAKSO (Finland, co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee). – The definition of “political crisis” seems to be a point of difference between the Albanian ruling party representatives and the rapporteurs. It seems that in Albania the word “crisis” has a meaning different to the one that it has here. When half the members of parliament are not participating in the work of the parliament, we think that that is a signal of a severe political crisis.

There is no dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition, but insults are exchanged between them on a daily basis. That is also a reflection of the political crisis. There are regular demonstrations on the streets; thousands – even tens of thousands – of people have been participating in the demonstrations, some against the government and some for the government. That is also a sign of the political crisis. It shows that there has been no possibility of solving problems through dialogue in the parliament, through parliamentary democracy.

That is why we think that it is correct to use the definition “political crisis”. We also see that it is important that the Council of Europe should be present in Albania. I myself have experience of Albanian political crisis and of the presence of the Council of Europe to solve political crisis. At that time, 10 years ago, we used instruments. The Presidential Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly visited during the severe crisis in Albania in 1997. The proposals that we made then helped political parties to begin dialogue and to find certain solutions at that time. I have to say that that crisis was not only political but deeply economic. With the help of the international community, we could solve that crisis. The main factor was that Albanians themselves were ready to have a dialogue and to solve their crisis.

We see that the time now is not ripe for the kind of international mediation that has been used before in many crises. That is why we are proposing that the Council of Europe should send its Presidential Committee, together with the rapporteurs to get the dialogue to begin between the political forces in Albania. We do not know what the outcome will be, but we have to learn from our own mistakes. When the Council of Europe has not been on the spot there have been big difficulties. We have to try to help to solve the political crisis.

Mr KOX (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left). – When a rather left-wing Finnish rapporteur is in complete agreement with a rather right-wing British rapporteur that a country is in a deep political crisis and that some form of extra assistance is now needed to help those responsible for the crisis to overcome their difficulties, the Assembly should listen very carefully to those rapporteurs and their call to us.

The UEL Group congratulates Jaakko Laasko and David Wilshire on their clear and frank report, and on the draft resolution and recommendation on the functioning – or rather dysfunctioning – of democratic institutions in Albania. The rapporteurs are clear about the matter. The fact that democratic institutions in Albania in general, and the government and parliament specifically, are not functioning properly is the shared responsibility of both the coalition and the opposition.

Each side neglects the political rights and relevance of the other side. It is perhaps understandable after everything that happened earlier, but it is not acceptable now that it has become clear that it is the citizens of Albania who are paying for this political stalemate. Both the coalition and the opposition are seriously damaging the image of their country and are therewith damaging the European integration of Albania, and their chances of increasing the prosperity and lowering the poverty of Albanian citizens.

With all respect to the Albanian opposition – we understand many of their complaints – we in the Group of the Unified European Left do not see a decisive argument for continuing the parliamentary boycott by the opposition. We say to the chairman of the Socialist Party, Mr Rama: stop boycotting parliament and start using it; parliamentarians belong in parliament, where their voters put them, in the trust that they would best represent their opinions and interests. So Mr Rama and friends of the Socialist Party, end your boycott and start your role as an opposition. We understand your problems, but you have to look first and foremost to the problems of the Albanian people.

To Prime Minister Berisha and his Democratic Party and the Alliance for Change, the Group of the Unified European Left says: stop accepting the dysfunctioning of your parliament; stop explaining what the opposition is doing wrong, start looking for what good a functioning parliamentary opposition could do for parliament, government and the people of Albania. Real leaders do not complain about problems; they try to succeed in overcoming those problems.

The Group of the Unified European Left is prepared to provide, with other political groups, extra assistance to both coalition and opposition in Albania and we support the proposal in the report to assist especially President Topi in his efforts to achieve reconciliation. The Group of the Unified European Left also supports the proposals of the co-rapporteurs to send the Assembly’s presidential committee, together with its co-rapporteurs, to Albania soon after this part-session ends, because Albania is running out of time.

Albania – this beautiful country with such a rich history, such a great culture, such brave citizens who have already suffered far too much – deserves not politicians who create problems but politicians who provide solutions. Be brave, colleagues from Albania, and try to convince your colleagues at home that the time has come to take a major step forward.

I also appeal to our friends in the Group of the European People's Party. While their amendments may be well intentioned, they are essentially destructive. If we neglect the crisis and block a solution, it will not be very helpful. Please let us accept the co-rapporteur’s proposals and not amend their proposals so that we end up with an empty proposal. Then the Parliamentary Assembly will show that we really know what dialogue is all about. It could serve as an example for our friends in Albania.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland, co-rapporteur). – Thank you, Mr President. I remember when we voted in the Assembly on whether the elections in Albania, which were the worst ever elections in that country, were free and fair. No one questioned the content of the elections, but party solidarity was used in the wrong way in the Assembly at that time. Nowadays, we do not have the kind of party solidarity, which prevents us from criticising our own party friends. We propose to use this party solidarity to say openly to Mr Rama, “End the boycott.”

The problem with the amendments, Mr Rusmali, is that you are proposing to delay every action that we propose. You propose that we should not use such party contacts to say what we clearly mean to our friends in Albania. We say in our proposal that everyone should assist President Topi, so that everyone influences his or her political group in respect of Albanian political parties, but you propose to take this away. You also propose to end the possibility that the Council of Europe should play a role in Albania.

Our Turkish friend, Mr Açikgöz, correctly said that we must visit Albania. We must go there with a presidential committee and monitoring rapporteurs. But at the same time, you support the amendment that tries to delete that paragraph. That is not logical. It is the wrong way to use party solidarity.

Mr President, our main task is to assist President Topi. We know him very well, and we know that he has a very realistic approach to how to solve the problems in Albania. The main aim of the concrete actions that we propose is to help him. It is not a question of our dictating anything from the outside; we are helping him to begin the dialogue with the political forces. I am sure that, sooner or later, we will be successful in what we are now striving for. Thank you, Mr President.

Friday 29 January 2010 at 10 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biodiversity and climate change

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