Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation

22.06.05

Mike made the following speech in the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly on 22nd June 2005 on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – It is always a pleasure and a great privilege to follow Frank Judd. Once again, most members will have nothing but admiration for his commitment not only to the issue of Chechnya but to the principles of the Council of Europe. I also offer congratulations to the two rapporteurs on both the report and the example that they have set in presenting it to the Monitoring Committee. I for one was critical of some aspects of the report and tabled amendments, but as others have said, the way in which the rapporteurs addressed concerns was fascinating and impressive. They responded honestly and seriously to the requests for things to be added to the report. I urge members to be cautious about adopting amendments that would put into the report things that the rapporteurs admitted that they could not include because they had not considered them. If we want to write reports in the Assembly, let us settle for that and not have rapporteurs. Otherwise, let us leave judgment on the contents of reports to rapporteurs. If they say that they have not had a fair chance to examine issues, let us accept that and move on, leaving those issues to be the subject of separate motions before the Assembly. If we can accept as an Assembly that we cannot rewrite history, we must also accept that we cannot fast-forward to the future. As Frank Judd and others have said, many of our countries have a lot to answer for on what is happening today. The United Kingdom is no exception. For more than 1 000 years, we have been fashioning our democracy, yet we still have a second chamber that is completely out of kilter with the considered view of the majority of the British people. The majority of those who sit in the second chamber in the houses of parliament are there through patronage of one prime minister or another. That is wholly unsatisfactory and totally undemocratic, yet it persists. Let no one believe that they live in a perfect democracy.

The report attempts to bring us up to date. It tells us what has been achieved and also says where Russia as a state has failed. We must be conscious of the fact that this is not the arena for payback or where we can address the atrocious performance of the Soviet regime. This is not a time for people to get their own back on the Russian people; this is about putting together a report that formulates a way forward for the Council of Europe. It should be optimistic, as the report rightly is, and it should congratulate Russia on what has been achieved. It also spells out clearly and effectively to the Assembly, to the Russian delegation, to the Duma, to the Russian president and more importantly to the Russian people that there are still things that need to be done.

I have not heard anyone in the Russian delegation or in this Assembly say no to that. There is a general acceptance that the report has it about right. I am sure that there will be some tinkering around the edges. The rapporteurs could have stipulated a time limit for the abolition of the death penalty, but they chose not to do so for proper reasons. I have some problems with the part on the media. I do not believe that it is possible in a short time to construct the media in a way that allows everyone to have their say in elections, as the report describes. However, that will materialise in time.

As others have said, we have come a long way in 15 years. Do not turn your back on that and on Russia. Keep Russia in the family of Europe and make it feel welcome and work with it. The improvements that we have achieved will continue and we will undoubtedly move forward at a pace with which both we and the Russian people can live.