Speeches September-October session 2009

Monday 28 September 2009 at 11.30 a.m.

Examination of credentials

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – I want to challenge the credentials of the new Moldovan delegation on procedural grounds under Rule 7.1.b, which deals with the obligation that any delegation should fairly represent the political groups in the parliament.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kox, for your challenge of the credentials of the Moldovan delegation on formal grounds, under Rule 7.1.b. Under Rule 7, credentials which are challenged on procedural grounds shall be referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which shall report to the Assembly, if possible within 24 hours.

Accordingly, the credentials of the Moldovan delegation are referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. The Chair will make proposals for the examination by the Assembly of the committee’s report when we consider the draft agenda.

I remind you that Representatives or Substitutes whose credentials are contested are entitled to take their seats provisionally, in accordance with Rule 7.4, until the Assembly has reached a decision in their case; however, they may not vote in any proceedings relating to the examination of their own credentials.

The other credentials set out in Document 12027 are ratified, unless there is an objection.

Monday 28 September 2009 at 3 p.m.

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

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – We must thank Mr Eörsi for his excellent report on the progress that this Organisation has made. As he says, many things have happened this summer, and we must also thank the President for spending some of his holiday to help this Organisation – the same goes for the Secretary General and many other colleagues and staff. We should recognise the efforts that have been made. It is good to criticise each other, but sometimes we need to say thank you.

The report is clear but I wish to raise two issues. The first is the report on the electoral observations and the other is the progress in the election of the new Secretary General and what will happen next. It was a pity that so few people were here when we heard the three reports from the election observers, because they were important reports, especially the one from Bulgaria. It is important for this Assembly to realise that the observation of elections is one of the more important things that we do. It is a means to help the parliaments of the countries involved to improve their democratic processes, and it is a good idea that when we discuss reports on various countries they are actually here to listen, not elsewhere doing far more important business.

The three reports contained many critical points, and I hope that the three delegations involved will take them into account. If they do not, there is no point sending the observers to all these elections. It is an attempt by the Assembly to help these countries and they should realise that.

On the election of the new Secretary General, I have two conclusions. First, we will elect a new Secretary General tomorrow. That was democratically decided and we should accept it. The Bureau also concluded this morning that there is a serious disagreement between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly on how to follow our rules. After our decision today, we will elect a new Secretary General tomorrow under conditions that are not quite proper, according to the rules of the Assembly. That is a democratic decision, so we accept it. It is a practical decision, too; Mr Hancock said, “We have to end this,” and sure, there are political arguments for bringing forward an election, but we have to realise that the Assembly said – this was not withdrawn – that the procedure followed by the Committee of Ministers was against our rules. That was the view of the vast majority in this Chamber, and we should realise that. That should be a clear signal to the Committee of Ministers tomorrow that this Assembly is doing something that it does not want to do. However, it accepts the facts of life and we will therefore elect one of the two excellent candidates tomorrow.

We disagree on the actual process, but importantly we agree on the future of co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. The five meetings we had this summer with the Slovenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Zbogar, who heads the Committee of Ministers, prove that there can be better co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. I hope that Minister Zbogar will continue his co-operation with this Assembly and that the next Chairman of the Committee of Ministers will do the same.

I must finish by thanking Mátyás Eörsi for his interesting contribution to this Assembly as head of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. And yes, Mátyás, one needs humour when one often has rather controversial ideas; that is the only way out in that case. I can say that because I am often in the same position as you. It was good that you were always successful at ending a heated debate with some humour. That could be considered advice for the rest of our colleagues. Thank you.

The promotion of Internet and online media services appropriate for minors

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation, on behalf of the Group,) said that the report was excellent and comprehensive. The idea of developing ethical standards should be supported. It was necessary to concentrate on the educational benefits of the Internet and shift the focus from the negative content. Education authorities needed to develop sport and social projects to ensure that adolescents spent less time on computers and more time interacting socially. The report had successfully flagged up the problems and the Council of Europe should begin to address them.

Tuesday 29 September 2009 at 10 a.m

Communication from the Committee of Ministers

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – Minister, I compliment you on having successfully reached an agreement on the future co-operation between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. What also urgently needs to improve are relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union. You state in your written communication that access of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights is essential. When do you expect that negotiations on the access of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights can start? Do you have any idea when they will end? Do we have some timetable already proposed for the European Union?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Žbogar?

Mr ŽBOGAR. – As I mentioned, we have a quadripartite meeting between the EU and the Council of Europe at the end of October. I hope that it will be an opportunity to exchange views. It will be after the Lisbon Treaty enters into effect, I hope – we should not pre-judge that – and that meeting will also enable discussions on accession to the European Convention on Human Rights to continue. I cannot say more than that. As far as Slovenia is concerned, I can say that we would be in favour; I think there is readiness for that from the member states of the European Union. I hope that we can start immediately after the Lisbon Treaty and we will see when we will end, but it is probably not too far in the future.

The war between Georgia and Russia: one year after

Mr LAAKSO (Finland, on behalf of the Group). – I must be critical of the rapporteurs. My first question to them is: why did you not visit the area? You have written your report behind a desk. You have been there before in connection with the first report. So much is happening in the area. We are getting a picture of what is happening outside the area. According to my information, Georgia has nothing against another visit and nor does Russia. I am sure that the de facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia would have allowed you to visit the area. The presence of the Council of Europe in the area would be an important step.

The problem is that the Council of Europe is not present in the conflict at all. In the draft resolution we are going to agree opinions and statements. The problem is that there are opinions, statements and demands but not relating to us.

For a long time, I have been in favour of the Council of Europe being present in the region. There are ways in which we can be present. The Monitoring Committee is in favour of the Council of Europe having at least observer status at the Geneva talks. It could be involved in the working groups at the talks. Unfortunately, Georgia opposed that proposal in the Monitoring Committee. I am not sure what Russia’s position is on the proposal. If the Council of Europe were present at the talks, it would be a good start. However, it would not be enough.

The Council of Europe should be in the area. Mr Hammarberg has done excellent work, but our Parliamentary Assembly unfortunately is not in the area. That is why perhaps we should make a demand of ourselves. The Council should send observers to the area and start negotiations with Georgia, Russia and the de facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on that proposal. Why are we demanding only that the European Union has such a role? Why are we not proposing that the Council of Europe has a presence in the area?

There is no dialogue between the parties and it is up to us to help the process of dialogue. I am sure that the Council of Europe is respected in the two countries and in the whole region, so we could play a role if we propose a role for ourselves.

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) drew attention to the fact that there was no doubt that on the matter of the reaction of the Russian authorities to Georgian aggression there was a consensus amongst Russians – lacking in respect of other issues – in favour of that reaction. Those who did not take into account this fact and the particular problems associated with the region would not succeed in making progress. An issue of particular importance to the Russian people was that of who started the war. It was also important to understand the role of Russia in the defence of its people. Russians were concerned that in some discussions the aggressor and the defender were wrongly placed on the same footing.

It was also a fact that two new states had emerged from the conflict. From a legal and administrative point of view those states felt entitled to their independence. If the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was interested in defending human rights it should engage in dialogue with the de facto authorities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Assembly should look seriously at the proposal made by Mr Laakso.

At this juncture, it was not feasible to use the approach formerly taken by the Assembly. Only when the facts of the current situation were accepted would the healthiest forces in the Caucasus applaud the actions of the Council of Europe.

Tuesday 29 September 2009 at 3 p.m.

Challenges posed by climate change

Ms MÓSESDÓTTIR (Iceland, on behalf of the Group). – Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I welcome Mr Prescott’s excellent and timely report on one of the biggest challenges of our age, climate change. Now, two months before the Copenhagen climate summit, it is vital that the Assembly calls for an ambitious binding global agreement that enables us to move towards a low-carbon world. At the same time, it is essential to realise that those who are responsible for global warming are not those suffering from the consequences, so the global agreement must take into account the link between climate change and human rights.

Governments agree that there is a need for a binding global agreement to lower CO₂ emissions. Governments must make their economies more environmentally friendly by refocusing policies, investments and spending on sectors that enhance the low-carbon world. To encourage governments to meet their obligations in a socially responsible manner, it is important to introduce an incentive framework. An example of such an incentive structure for governments would be the annual publishing of a green economy index to measure and monitor the progress of each state when it comes to the factors that are believed to be the primary causes of global warming.

Enterprises and industries should also be encouraged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That can be done by developing and implementing incentives for them to become greener, such as a carbon tax. Many countries rich in renewable energy often experience difficulties finding users for their energy other than businesses that emit a lot of greenhouse gas, such as aluminium plants. That is one reason why Greenland wants to increase its CO₂ emission levels. It is therefore important to establish venues that bring together countries that provide renewable energy with environmentally friendly businesses.

Finally, I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly to paragraph 22.8 in the draft resolution. It deals with the need to assist governments in meeting their obligations by means of research and development co-operation and technology transfers to developing countries. In that regard, I would like to mention that the United Nations University has operated a geothermal training programme in Iceland since 1979. Paragraph 22.8 does not mention geothermal energy; that is why I mention the training programme. The aim of the programme is to assist developing countries with significant geothermal potential in training specialists in geothermal exploration and development. In my view, the programme needs to be expanded in close co-operation with the developing countries.

Ms KONEČNÁ (Czech Republic). – Global climate change has been one of the greatest media phenomena in recent years. Discussion of the issue has become a bit special and it is a much more political subject in many countries. The knowledge that has been gained so far means that we cannot be in the dark about the fact that the climate has been changing our planet. That is certain. However, the cause of those significant changes is uncertain. It is certainly not simply the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The question is whether the role played by carbon dioxide in climate change is as important as it is presented in the media.

It is too tempting to see the production of carbon dioxide as the main cause of climate change. Such simplification of the problem is very attractive for the media because it is easy to explain to the public and because it means that they can find a culprit quickly. We must accept that the problem is not that easy and that we know too little about the merit of global changes. It is necessary to warn against uncritical simplification of the merit of global climate changes, even if this warning is unpopular. Many people and organisations have devoted economic and political effort to promoting the simple solution for global climate change by combating the production of carbon dioxide.

As regards the unclear causes of global climate change, I think that rational investments in effective adaptation measures are more important than combating the production of carbon dioxide. One such effective measure in central Europe could be to increase the storage capacity of the landscape and to treat water resources better, for example.

We would avoid great disgrace if we preferred adaptation measures to uncritically combating the production of carbon dioxide. It would be an unforgivable mistake for future generations if we invested considerable resources in the fight against carbon dioxide at the expense of the technological development of human society.

Cultural education: the promotion of cultural knowledge, creativity and intercultural understanding through education

Mr KESKIN (Germany, on behalf of the Group) thanked the rapporteur for her work and for the draft recommendation. The process of globalisation not only ushered in social and economic change, but also led to more rapid cultural exchange. The process of global migration made for greater diversity. Where the meeting of cultures generated unexpected conflicts, education became even more important.

The primary task of cultural education should be the development of individual talents and skills to allow people to make their way in a diverse world. Cultural education should have greater importance. There should be more exchanges in the field of education and the demand for member states to provide resources for intercultural education should be met. People who were at a disadvantage in cultural terms should receive particular support. Intercultural education could take different forms in people’s lives, in respect of language, the dialogue of religion, and acceptance of different ways of living and different backgrounds.

Wednesday 30 September 2009 at 10 a.m.

The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2008-09

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – On behalf of my group, I welcome Mr Gurría, Mr de Geus and our colleagues from Japan, Canada and Mexico. I also wish to thank the rapporteur for the report on OECD’s activities.

In our previous debate, we discussed the financial crisis that by then was just being recognised by OECD, although its predictions were still far too optimistic. The crisis turned out to be much more devastating than OECD predicted only a year ago. Not only was the economic forecast flawed, but OECD’s policy advice before the crisis turned out to be short sighted in some respects. As an example, I would like to ask Mr Gurría for his reaction in retrospect to OECD’s view of Iceland. Not long ago, OECD was proud of Iceland. In 2006 it noted that Iceland’s financial markets were blooming and access to capital was strongly improved. Restrictions on the financial markets had been ended, commercial banks had been privatised and the financial sector had opened up to international capital. That liberalisation programme was described as an admirable success and something that should be continued. Mr Gurría must surely agree that that advice was not among the OECD’s best. Does he agree with one of his deputy directors that policy makers, including OECD, caused the crisis.

I urge OECD to investigate the role that its past policy advice played in the vulnerability of monetary, financial and economic systems to crisis. Such an investigation could provide valuable lessons to enable OECD to improve its future policy advice and should form part of the book that Mr Omtzigt requested. I have tabled an amendment to request such an investigation and I ask the Assembly to support it.

OECD’s policy advice needs to be improved or even reviewed. Its recent advice to the European Union could, in large part, have come from before the crisis. According to OECD, the crisis should mainly be used to help governments to get controversial structural reforms adopted – those same structural reforms that OECD has recommended for years, such as cuts in spending on social security, liberalisation and deregulation. OECD’s motto appears to be “Never waste a good crisis”.

I also ask Mr Gurría to reflect on advice from the Trade Union Advisory Committee to OECD. TUAC states that if the root causes of the crisis are left unaddressed, poverty and inequality will continue to increase, thereby sowing the seeds of the next crisis. TUAC is aware that the inadequate regulation of the financial sector was a major contributor to the crisis, but thinks that the causes were not only financial. Structural changes in income distribution – in particular, declining wage shares and surging corporate profits that led to income inequality levels approaching those of the 1920s – were also key factors. Does Mr Gurría agree that poverty and extreme inequality levels have contributed to the crisis and that governments must put in place policies that reverse the growth in income inequality?

There is some good news in the report on OECD’s activities, especially on the progress made in tax co-operation. Poor countries are most vulnerable to the multiple crises we have seen and stand to lose a fair amount of official development assistance this year or next, especially from those countries that allocate a fixed percentage of their GDP to development aid, because GDP is falling in many countries. The least-developed countries also suffer most from so-called tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Every year, developing countries lose an estimated $160 billion in tax revenues because of the practices of transnational corporations. It is clear that some of our member states play a dubious role in facilitating transnational corporations in avoiding paying taxes in developing countries and shifting the repatriated profits to tax havens. Is OECD willing to look into the role that its members play in this facilitation of tax avoidance?

I look forward to the response to these questions.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I see that our rapporteur wishes to speak at the end of the debate so I now invite Mr Gurría to comment on the debate so far.

Mr GURRÍA. – ….I come to Mr Elzinga. You are right; I do not think that we could predict the scale of the incompetence and oversight of the regulatory agencies in countries such as Iceland or even Ireland, or the kind of liabilities that were taken on by the banks. When a bank has liabilities that are greater than the gross domestic product of a country, something is very wrong, and it was not OECD, IMF or BIS that had to capture that first. There is a massive oversight problem among the regulators, both in those countries and in countries where branches of those banks operated – in the main monetary centres. Some things are the responsibility of regulators, and some are the responsibility of international organisations, but some are strongly the responsibility of the countries themselves.

The Trade Union Advisory Committee is an integral member of OECD. We consult trade unions and business all the time. I just met all the leaders of OECD members in Pittsburgh. We also met them in Davos earlier in the year, and they regularly consult us before meetings of the OECD Council, so I feel that we have covered their point of view and their contributions. I am happy that you are happy with our work on taxes.

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus) thanked OECD, which had functioned extremely well in the past, and which had contributed to the development of the political measures now being used to respond to the current economic situation. Countries learned about each other through OECD but they needed to recognise that in this particular situation things were rather different. Many countries had suffered as a result of the crisis, which had started in the United States and spread. All countries needed to learn how to be more proactive in future, in order to avoid another crisis.

Protectionism was regarded as the worst possible way forward but, for example, the United States Government had intervened to counteract adverse economic developments in that country. Countries that had implemented moderate levels of protectionism had managed to protect employment. The idea of introducing some degree of protectionism should not be dismissed out of hand. Citizens should be offered the possibility of enjoying a social safety net that would allow them to keep their jobs. This point applied particularly to small countries and to small and medium-sized enterprises.

He agreed with Mr Gurría’s remarks on the green economy, but the world’s current problems needed to be looked at more closely. Easy solutions were not appropriate because they often meant wage cuts and allowed bankers to continue to enjoy their bonuses. International banking organisations seemed to have learned little from the crisis. Cypriot banks had not taken any advice and were still looking for high interest on their loans. This had led to a reduction in investment, tourism and exports. The state had developed its own programmes to promote the construction industry and to help people to secure mortgages but these steps required a large contribution from the state. Banks themselves needed to act in order to breathe new life into the market

Mr KESKIN (Germany) thanked the rapporteur and the Secretary-General for their reports. Overall, the crisis was clearly the result of the failure of neo-liberalism. It was not the case simply that supervisory control of financial markets had broken down. The programmed withdrawal of politicians from their role in the supervision of the economy had led to unrestrained speculation. This represented a political failure.

The effects of the crisis would be felt for a long time: indeed the true effects on employment markets would become apparent only in years to come. Germany had spent a total of €128 billion on economic packages and other aid. This had serious implications for national debt. It was crucial to be clear about what lessons to draw from the crisis, particularly in social terms. It would be unconscionable for banks that had been saved with billions in taxpayers’ money not to learn such lessons. Some banks were still paying their managers excessive bonuses, but any institution that claimed government aid should use it cautiously and repay it as soon as possible. Furthermore, the public at large should not pick up the tab for the failures of individuals and institutions. High-risk deals should be prohibited and those securities that had no effective value had to be withdrawn from circulation.

Banks should be obliged to pass on cuts in interest rates made by the European Central Bank. Many firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, were still suffering from a lack of credit, and unemployment was on the increase. To ensure that this disaster was not repeated, a clearer form of control for banks, if not nationalisation, was needed.

Wednesday 30 September 2009 at 3 p.m.

Current affairs debate: the situation of human rights defenders and the increasing violence in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation.

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – I thank Mr Dick Marty for his remarks and Mr Umakhanov and Mr Hammarberg for the information on what is happening on the ground. They confirm that there has been a widespread explosion of violence in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation. I get the same information from Russian members of my group.

The nature of the violence seems diverse. It is partly religiously inspired, and partly politically inspired. A great part of it is criminal violence. Whatever its nature, its consequences are horrible and devastating for the victims, who include many citizens, many police officers, many human rights defenders and many representatives of authorities.

According to my Russian colleagues, the violence also threatens the already fragile stability of the Caucasian region. It thereby threatens the social and economic development of the region and the living conditions of all those who have to make a living there.

It is a vicious circle. Whatever the nature of all that violence, it is certain that its main breeding ground is social injustice, poverty, mass unemployment and a total lack of hope for a better future. There is mass unemployment in the region. There is catastrophic mass youth unemployment. Whoever studies that has to come to the conclusion that that social injustice offers an enormous opportunity to everyone who wants to use victims of the social injustice for their own goals. Mass unemployment gives criminals and terrorists a chance to recruit people for their violent acts against citizens and institutions of state and society.

The Group of the Unified European Left therefore urges all relevant authorities to acknowledge the clear relationship between social injustice and poverty and the exploitation of that by those who use violence to meet their own goals. By acknowledging that relationship, relevant authorities should commit themselves far more than now to an effective policy to decrease social injustice and mass unemployment in the region. Only reacting to the force and violence of gangs, criminals and terrorists, without addressing the social issues, will be ineffective and unjust. The more the social justice increases, the more the violence will go down. That, at least, is the opinion of my Russian colleagues in my group and I think that they are right.

A horrible example of the violence in the region is the violence against the defenders of human rights. Scandalous attacks on these courageous citizens have taken place in the recent past. That should worry us all, because attacks on human rights defenders are also attacks on this body. We must guarantee the protection of human rights in all countries in the Council. Therefore, we should call on the relevant authorities to far better protect human rights defenders and to bring the people responsible for those attacks to justice. With that call, we underline that until now the relevant authorities in the Russian Federation have not done enough to avoid attacks against human rights defenders and to bring those who are responsible for those crimes to justice. They did not do enough to get rid of the climate of impunity.

Let me end by paying our highest respects to the victims of all those crimes, those who paid the highest price for their wish to defend other citizens’ human rights. It is easy here to talk about human rights. It can be so hard to give your life for those rights. Those who were killed in the North Caucasus while defending human rights should have a statue dedicated to them in this building.

Allegations of politically-motivated abuses of the criminal justice system in Council of Europe member states

Mr LECOQ (France, on behalf of the Group) congratulated the rapporteur on an excellent, detailed and relevant report. The subject was very important, since it was clear that political abuse of the criminal justice system did exist.

It would always be tempting for the executive to interfere with the judiciary. However, the judiciary needed a guarantee of independence. The quality of justice in a given country was dependent on the independence of the judiciary.

In France, reforms had been introduced to strengthen the executive and some believed that those changes were at the cost of the independence of the judiciary. If the prosecutor was in some way dependent on the government it would be open to doubt whether a fair trial would be possible. The Council of Europe needed to consider this matter and help place the citizen at the heart of the criminal justice system.

Drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment

Mr LEMPENS (Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – We all agree that a healthy environment, consisting at least of clean air and potable water, are essential for human life, and everybody has the right to live. A healthy environment is therefore a human right, and the Council of Europe stands for human rights. It is good that, as a start, the right to a healthy and viable environment is to be put in an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; we applaud that initiative.

According to research, poor people live shorter and less healthy lives. People in poor countries also live shorter lives. That is partly caused by their environment, and a great deal of the responsibility is ours, too. We know about the pollution caused by multinationals, and about pollution outside Europe, such as that in the oil depots in Nigeria and the Philippines, which threatens human life and communities.

The report is a good start, and we really hope that it will be implemented and acted on; that is every parliamentarian’s responsibility, working in our own parliaments. We cannot make this decision and then do nothing about it in our own country. Certainly, we members of the United European Left will continue to campaign in our countries for a healthy environment for all human beings. That also means preventing bad living conditions, and taking away the causes of ill health and sickness. We should regularly research people’s health, so that we can trace the causes of ill health. We should establish information systems concerning the environment, for a start. There is a lot to do.

Mr President, our group is the United European Left, so we think that it would be a great step forward to change fundamentally our economy and ensure that people come before profit. We in the UEL see that disrespect for the human right to a healthy environment is often related to the destructive elements of global capitalism. Less brutal capitalism and more socialist-inspired policy would therefore be very healthy for our environment. Even if members disagree with that, I ask them to agree on this additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Challenge, on procedural grounds, of still unratified credentials of the Parliamentary Delegation of Moldova

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – As Mr Greenway recalled, it was I who asked on Monday to examine on procedural grounds the credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova. Two days later, we can discuss the results of that examination. I compliment Mr Greenway and the rules committee on their clear and quick report on the issue, and thank them.

Rule 6.2 states that national delegations should fairly represent the political groups in their parliaments. On the basis of the information that I received, I found it necessary, though difficult, to question whether the Moldovan delegation met our criteria. Before I come to the report, I want to make a preliminary remark – John Greenway spoke about it, too. Changing Rule 7.1.b is a very good proposal. It was not my request that only one person could request this challenge, but it is in the rules so I did it. Credentials can be challenged on procedural or substantive grounds. To do so on procedural grounds means that we examine whether a national parliament has fair representation in this Chamber. As we know, to do so on substantive grounds is often inspired by the need to expel a total delegation from this Chamber. It is wise to consider both procedures and see whether they need to be modernised. I agree very much with the chair of the rules committee. I used my right because the information I received needed to be clarified. The committee has now given us clarification.

The only relevant information on the composition of a delegation comes from the Speaker of the parliament involved. If the factual decision of a parliament is not in accordance with the letter that the Speaker sends to the President of this Assembly, as was the case here, we rely only on the Speaker’s letter. The decision of the Moldovan Parliament to nominate only one member of the opposition, even though that opposition holds 48 out of 101 seats, has been overruled by the Speaker’s letter, which states that two out of the five members of the Moldovan delegation belong to the opposition. That is a fair representation.

The rules committee also clarifies if and when a parliament’s Speaker can appoint substitutes. The committee makes it clear that that does not need to come with a complete proposal for all members and substitutes, although it is the normal way of acting in most parliaments. That could and should inspire parliaments that behave in another way, but it is their right to do so and that is clarified, too.

The third and final clarification is that, although there is no obligation to nominate substitutes, if you do so you should take Rule 6.2 into full account. I am glad that the committee gave clear advice to the Moldovan Parliament to do so and to come in January 2010 with a full delegation. It is important for the Moldovan Parliament to be fully represented here, and it is also its right. I wholeheartedly support the committee’s proposal. I hope that the Moldovan Parliament will make use of its rights. That could help to improve the process of reconciliation in Moldovan society and in the Moldovan Parliament after the harsh clashes of the recent past. I hope to see all our Moldovan colleagues, who unfortunately had to leave yesterday, in January and I fully support Mr Greenway’s report.

Thursday 1 October 2009 at 10 a.m.

Reconsideration on substantive grounds of previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation (Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly)

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – The Group of the Unified European Left fully endorses the wise conclusions in the report of Andreas Gross. They show us a way out of this dreadful dead-end street, and of the situation that has paralysed this Assembly for over a year. A year ago, together with my colleagues on the Presidential Committee and the rapporteurs, I visited South Ossetia, Georgia and Moscow. It was then already clear to me, and I think to us, that Georgia started the war; Russia overreacted and brutally violated international law. Both are responsible for the horror, damage and death in the area. We saw that with our own eyes, and we were horrified.

A year later, the war goes on by other means, including through this Assembly. The challenging of the credentials is part of it. The destructive amendments to the wise conclusions of Andreas Gross are also part of it. While Georgians here take every opportunity to paralyse the Assembly, our Russian colleagues have totally failed to convince their government that it has to meet the criteria and seek solutions and reconciliation.

As I say, together with colleagues from the Presidential Committee, we visited the area. What I saw and heard there from the people involved – the citizens – was horrible and horrifying. The damage done to those citizens made me feel ashamed of being a European who could see what was happening and could not do anything. My group holds the Governments of Georgia and Russia responsible for this irresponsible war and its aftermath. They violated international law and human rights; they should take responsibility for that, and end hostilities in the area, and in the Assembly, and finally seek reconciliation. That is a difficult road to travel. The wise conclusions of Andreas Gross do not offer an easy solution, but if we end the dialogue now, we continue the war, and the damage done to the citizens in the area will continue. We cannot allow that to happen.

We are an Organisation that promotes human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Let us think about the citizens in South Ossetia and Georgia when we vote on the report. As I say, the Group of the Unified European Left, totally endorses the report’s wise conclusions, and I hope that members will all support Mr Gross’s report.

Statement by Mr Danilo Türk

THE PRESIDENT. –. I give the floor to Mr Fox – Mr Kox – on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – You changed my name, Mr President, although that is the individual right of all members.

Mr Türk, thank you for praising our Council of Europe. In doing so, you are in line with all the other presidents and prime ministers who come here and declare their love for our Organisation, but why is it then so hard to put your money where your love is? If you love us so much, why do you starve our budgets, and why do you allow the European Union to take over ever more of our responsibilities, with its own assemblies for southern and northern countries, and its agencies on human rights? Could you give us a clear signal of your true love for our Organisation?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Türk?

Mr TÜRK. – Thank you, Mr Kox. I would like to start my response on a slightly more philosophical note. Love, as you know, is a complicated emotion, and it would therefore take a lot of time to discuss it in all its dimensions, but you mentioned two of those dimensions. One is the budgetary dimension, and the other is the question of competences, which of course arises any time that one links love and politics.

On the budget, Slovenia is a relatively new country, and I must admit very openly that we have not yet fully adjusted to the fact that we are contributing to a number of international organisations. We need to go through a long education period. I say that with a degree of self-criticism, because as President, I could perhaps do more. As someone who has worked in the United Nations, I understand things better, perhaps, than many of my compatriots. There is always a problem when it comes to how to contribute to international organisations, because we are not yet used to doing so. Of course, other countries are richer, older and have more experience, and they could perhaps be more aggressive, in the sense of providing funds.

Secondly, the EU and its evolution is an important matter to discuss. There is a process under way right now. There was a time, years ago in another period, when a special Committee of Wise Men was established to look into those relations. We have a similar need now, partly for the reasons that you mentioned. I am not sure about all the different initiatives that expand the workload within the European Union; one has to consider that.

Above all, I am slightly concerned about an issue that I mentioned at the beginning of my statement – legitimacy. The European Union has a basis of legitimacy through, obviously, the international treaties that constitute it, but it certainly needs more if it is to be really able to express the opinion of the peoples of the European Union in its work. We should not be satisfied with what we have now. The German Federal Constitutional Court, which is often mentioned these days, has addressed the question of what it termed structural democratic deficits. We have to look into that problem as well. I am sure that the Council of Europe can help the European Union on that, and this Parliamentary Assembly could be of importance in that regard. The legitimacy issue within the European Union has to be discussed in a much more focused way.

Thursday 1 October 2009 at 3 p.m.

General policy debate on the future of the Council of Europe

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – I see that Pierre Lellouche is leaving the Chamber – thank you for your contribution to our debate. I also thank Jean-Claude Mignon for his excellent report. Almost all of it will be totally endorsed by my group.

Today we are recalling the Council of Europe’s past, but we are also speaking of its future. Sixty years ago, the Council embodied the hope and expectations of so many in Europe after the catastrophe of the Second World War. Quite soon after that we saw the beginning of the Cold War and the loss of hope and expectation of the possibilities for the Council. Europe was divided between east and west, between communism and capitalism. The Council of Europe became in practice the “Council of western Europe”.

Later in the 20th century, we saw even less hope for the Council of Europe and its aspirations. There were coups d'état in Greece and Turkey, continuous dictatorship in Spain and Portugal, the suppression of freedom and democracy in eastern Europe, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the blackmail of Poland through the Warsaw Pact. For half of the 1980s, there were few hopes, few expectations and few aspirations left for the Council. We need to take that into consideration when we remember our 60th anniversary.

Mr President, 20 years ago the reservoir of hope, expectations and aspirations refilled once more when the citizens of eastern Europe took back power from the communist regimes and went on their way to democracy. The citizens of eastern Europe gave Europe a new chance to unite and the Council of Europe a chance to prove our value and capability to serve human rights, democracy and the rule of law on the doorstep of the 21st century.

Yes, we should remember our 60th anniversary, but it is better to celebrate our 20th anniversary. We are the oldest organisation in Europe as regards human rights, democracy and the rule of law, but we are also the youngest because we have only been able to deal with those principles as a united Europe in which both east and west participate for 20 years. As we are still the youngest organisation in that regard, we experience problems in reinventing and developing ourselves. That should not worry us. It is normal. This Assembly has experienced problems this week, but that is not a problem. The only problem would be if we were not capable of dealing with those problems. As Mike Hancock quite rightly said, we have proved that we can deal with these terrible problems.

It was never easy to have the aspirations to unite all European countries in one Council of Europe, with its own Parliamentary Assembly, to debate developments on the continent. That was never an easy job. Politicians who are looking for an easy job are on the wrong track. It is always difficult to do these things, and although we are united in the Council of Europe, there are many things that divide us. That should not worry us – it should give us hope. Sixty years after we started, and 20 years after we restarted, we are allowed to say that there are new expectations, new hope and new inspirations and aspirations for the Council.

Once again, Jean-Claude, thank you for your excellent report. We have some remarks to make, which you will hear when we deal with the amendments, but otherwise it is excellent.

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Monaco

Mr SOBKO (Russian Federation, on behalf of the Group) thanked the rapporteurs for their in-depth report which was one of the best he could recall being put before the Assembly. It had been five years since Monaco had joined the Council of Europe and the Principality had been doing what it could ever since. Much progress had been made in the area of constitutional reform. These represented important steps in developing democracy in Monaco. In 2004 it undertook to fulfill a great number of commitments and it should be congratulated on having met most of them. Notable achievements included the development of the criminal code, statutory equality between men and women and the freedom of association. There remained some outstanding issues, particularly the non-ratification of Protocols 1 and 12 of the Convention on Human Rights, but it should be borne in mind that Monaco had unusual circumstances and that only 30% of its residents were citizens. The National Council was playing a significant role in public life, not something that had been the case historically. The Group of the Unified European Left trusted that Monaco would not rest on its laurels and was encouraged by the progress made so far.

Friday 2 October 2009 at 10 a.m.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova: implementation of Resolution 1666 (2009)

Mr KOX (Chair of UEL Group, Netherlands, on behalf of the Group). – It is good to see you in the chair, Ms Mósesdóttir, as it shows that Iceland is playing its full part in European co-operation.

The most important statement in the report is perhaps in the addendum. It states in paragraph 9, “Recent political developments show that the democratic process is working in Moldova”. That is an important conclusion, and I agree with what Mr Gross said. Although there are many problems in Moldova, the poorest country in Europe, it has been able until now to accept the results of elections and hand over power when those results dictate it. That is important, because in other places in Europe the process of accepting the results of elections has been more difficult. There were problems in the elections in April, and in the aftermath, which we all remember. We discussed them here and adopted Resolution 1666. We are still very worried about what happened, because it could happen again.

It is good that the Assembly is dealing with the matter and is investigating it. I thank Mr Vareikis and Mrs Durrieu for their report. The good news, as has been said, is that the country was at least partly able to overcome its huge problems. We should compliment Moldova and its parliamentarians on that. There have been new elections to solve the problem, and the election of a president. There has been a transfer of power; President Voronin acted democratically when he decided to step down and hand over power. It is nice that he has decided to be a candidate to join the Moldovan delegation. His credentials were accepted last Wednesday, after we investigated them, so a former president will come to the Council of Europe Assembly to participate in our discussions; that is a good promotion, I think.

There are still a lot of problems left in Moldova. This Assembly should, where possible, help our Moldovan colleagues and the Moldovan Parliament. Helping them is better than ordering them to do things. I therefore propose an amendment; we should not order the Moldovan Parliament to change its constitution. As Andy Gross said, Moldova has proved that it can solve problems in a democratic way. I also agree with him that a quantitative majority would be useful, and would be an expression of democratic feeling. In the Netherlands, for example, we never elect our Queen and we never elect the prime minister; they just happen to be there. We never have a vote on the former, and we have an ingenious voting system for the latter. We should ask the Moldovan Parliament to reconsider its laws on the election of the president, but we should not order them to do so. It must be capable of doing that for itself.

There remains one specific problem. We discussed it earlier this week, when I challenged the credentials of the Moldovan delegation on procedural grounds. A very clear and concise report was presented by John Greenway’s Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs. One of the recommendations in the report was that we should ask the Moldovan Parliament to come up with a fully fledged delegation to the Assembly in the January part-session, in which there is fair representation of all political parties, including substitutes and members. I therefore propose an amendment to that effect.