2006 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-eighth sitting

Wednesday 4 October 2006 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.10 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Sitting have been distributed.

Are these minutes agreed to?

The minutes are agreed to.

The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Sitting have not yet been distributed. They will be adopted at a later sitting.

2. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT. – Our first business today is to consider changes proposed by the Ukrainian delegation in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2006) 6 Addendum 4.

Is the proposed change in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

3. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration, No. 385, on the liberation of detained Palestinian parliamentarians, Document 11060, which has been signed by 22 members, has been printed.

Any Representative or Substitute may add their signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.

4. The OECD and the world economy

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business at this afternoon’s sitting is the enlarged debate on the OECD and the world economy. This debate will take place under the rules set out on pages 202 to 210 of the Rules of Procedure.

We begin with the presentation by Mr Cosidó, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, of its report on the OECD and the world economy, Document 11012. We shall then hear contributions from the following committees: Social, Health and Family Affairs; Migration, Refugees and Population; Culture, Science and Education; and Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. They will be followed by a statement by Mr Angel Gurría, Secretary General of the OECD.

The rapporteur has eight minutes; committee spokespersons have three minutes; and participants in the general debate have five minutes.

For this debate we welcome the participation of delegations from the following parliaments of non-European member states of the OECD: Canada, Korea, Japan and Mexico. The list of speakers closed at 7 p.m. yesterday; 18 names are on the list and one amendment has been tabled.

I now call on Mr Cosidó to present the report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development. You have eight minutes.

Mr COSIDÓ (Spain) welcomed to the Assembly the delegations from the non-European OECD member states of Japan, Korea, Canada and Mexico, and thanked their representatives for attending the part-session and participating in the drafting of the resolution. He also thanked the Secretary General of the OECD for his co-operation.

Most analyses of the global economy addressed two issues: taking stock of the current situation and looking at future risks. The committee’s report was different as it focused on opportunities for stable and fair growth. The global economy had grown quickly in the past four years and was forecast to continue to grow. New areas, for example in Asia, had opened up new opportunities. The turbulence of increased oil prices, natural disasters and risks to key economies had not prevented significant growth from occurring, which demonstrated the positive effects of globalisation. But the negative effects of globalisation had to be mitigated. International trade should be liberalised and customs barriers reduced to promote growth. All countries would win, developing and developed economies alike. Markets should be more transparent and effective. In some countries, greater legal certainty was needed. Migration had had a positive effect on growth through the creation of a global labour market. None the less, it was necessary to regulate illegal migration in order to prevent long-term economic and social risks. Growth should be more balanced and trade deficits and budget imbalances should be reduced. The solution was closer international co-operation in which the OECD should reinforce its leadership.

Energy was a major challenge. Alternatives to oil were needed, such as renewable energy sources. Japan’s suggestion of a new generation of nuclear plants should be considered. Less-developed countries should be included in those efforts and international aid should be redirected to be more effective. The European Union economy should become a driving force of the global economy through the thorough application of the Lisbon Agenda. Economic and social systems must be reformed in order to absorb demographic change. Members of the Assembly were politicians, not economists, but freedom, human rights and democracy were inseparable from economic considerations.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Cosidó.

I call Mrs Hurskainen to present the contribution of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Document 11055. She has three minutes.

Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – Thank you, Mr President. The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee yesterday discussed the latest report on the OECD and the world economy. It approved the committee’s contribution to the debate, which I now have the pleasure of presenting. I congratulate Mr Cosidó on his excellent report, which covers a broad subject. The OECD covers a wide range of activities and it is therefore perhaps understandable that all aspects of its work cannot be covered equally.

The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee would, however, like to underline the importance of social policies on sustainable development and economic growth. Issues such as an ageing population, the employment situation and the development of pensions policy must not be forgotten in this context. Governments and parliaments are currently the object of two opposing trends. On one hand, there is the pressure of a globalised economy and all its consequences, such as the need to contain public expenditure and the need to reduce labour costs. On the other hand, there is the justified demand by citizens for strengthening of the European social model as the basis for a stable and socially just Europe. Social justice, equality and solidarity are important parts of our European values. Therefore, social policies should be regarded not as a cost but as a condition for social welfare and, consequently, economic prosperity. In particular, we must address the question of how to ensure the welfare of our children, of families and of the elderly in our society.

I see that time is short, so I shall conclude. We need a new vision of European social policy. That new vision should address the three major challenges for our societies today: the challenge of globalisation, the challenge of technological change and the demographic challenge.

Those are some of the main points that I wanted to raise, Mr President. You have the text of the complete speech, which is available in writing. We will, and should, naturally continue the discussion on the interdependence of social policies, economic development and globalisation in the future. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Salles to present the oral contribution of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. He has three minutes.

Mr SALLES (France) said that a year ago he had submitted to the Assembly a report on migratory flows. That subject was topical today because of the migratory flows being seen in southern Europe. A meeting had been held in Spain last Friday to talk about the issues. The cause of the influx of migrants to southern Europe was the lack of prosperity in their countries of origin. He stressed the importance of involving migrants in the development of strategies to tackle the issues. Many countries needed immigrants. Indeed, some sectors of the economy were dependent on migrant labour. That issue was one of the major challenges of the 21st century and it was necessary to go beyond simply domestic legislation and instead develop a programme of co-operation at a European level. The issue needed to be pursued with zeal and resources.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Baroness Hooper to present the contribution of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Document 11054. She has three minutes.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – It is an important function of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to monitor and debate the activities and policies of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We in the Assembly provide an essential and unique platform for an open, transparent debate. In that context I very much welcome the presence of the new Secretary General, Mr Gurria, and look forward to hearing from him shortly. I believe that the enlarged Assembly is greatly enriched by the presence and contributions of the representatives of the observer states, and I welcome them as well.

As my theme today is culture and education, I think it worth drawing attention to the special exhibition outside in the lobby, brought to us by the Japanese delegation. It demonstrates in particular how developed countries can help the less-developed countries to preserve their cultural heritage. We are most grateful to our Japanese colleagues for the initiative.

My committee had some very useful and fascinating meetings in Mexico last year, which included sessions in Mexico City as well as in Oaxaca. I hope that those too will be repeated in the future.

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education sees the theme of culture and education as an essential element of economic progress. Indeed, with ever-increasing globalisation it becomes more and more important for people to have a firm sense of their own cultural identity, wherever they live or work, and to be able to expect that identity to be respected and safeguarded. Mr Cosidó took account of that in his excellent report. He emphasised the need for more support for research and development, and for the raising of standards of education and vocational training. He also kindly accepted a further amendment from me in committee, which now stands as paragraph 12 of the draft resolution.

The reason for this reinforcement of the culture and education message is simply that, in its response to the recommendations that emerged from last year’s report and debate, the OECD failed to respond to paragraph 15, in which the enlarged Assembly called on the OECD and the Council of Europe to co-ordinate their action on mutually identified priority areas in education and planning.

That said, we acknowledge and welcome the fact that the OECD response focused on higher education and research, and notified us of a major review of tertiary education in 24 countries which will produce a report next year. I hope that that will happen before our debate this time next year. We look forward to it, as well as to the OECD’s contribution to the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Dupraz to present the oral contribution of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.

Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that his committee welcomed the OECD’s recognition that the world economy must be allowed to grow sustainably and in such a way that it helped developing economies. If the world economy were to grow harmoniously, responsibilities had to be shared. Social considerations and environmental perspectives were often overlooked. Economies operated at a regional level before they operated on a global basis. Half the world’s population lived in rural areas and were engaged in subsistence farming. Countries that now had high living standards had themselves developed from an agricultural basis. However, developing countries, reliant on agriculture, were currently being prevented from growing and prospering by the decisions of international organisations. Cotton farming in Africa was one example. Nascent markets were frequently damaged before they had the opportunity to prosper. He underscored the importance of supporting agriculture in developing countries and not allowing it to be destroyed by the market while in its infancy.

THE PRESIDENT. — Thank you, Mr Dupraz.

We come now to the statement by Mr Angel Gurría, Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly it gives me great pleasure to welcome you for this debate, the first since you took up your duties as Secretary General in June this year. I sincerely congratulate you on your appointment. You bring a wealth of experience to the job. As Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico from 1994 to 1998, your approach was marked by dialogue and consensus building. As Minister for Finance and Public Credit from 1998 to 2000, you steered Mexico’s economy to stability and in 1999 you chaired the OECD’s Ministerial Council. As you were previously part of the team that negotiated Mexico’s admission to the OECD in 1994, there can be very little that you do not know about this Organisation.

The Council of Europe Assembly has acted as a parliamentary forum for the OECD since it came into existence in 1961, and before that for its precursor, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. All your predecessors have addressed the Assembly and I thank you for coming to address us today. It is a mark of the extremely fruitful co-operation that has always prevailed between our two organisations, whether in science, education, social cohesion, migration, the environment, health, economic crime, fiscal or other matters. Although the OECD has a membership of 30 market democracies, your work has increasingly focused on reaching out to the rest of the world, not only to member states of the Council of Europe, such as Russia, Ukraine and others, but to rising economies such as China and, more traditionally, developing countries.

We in this Assembly much appreciate and encourage that widening of the OECD’s horizon as it allows us to gain a better understanding of the greater European region and its relationship to the rest of the world. That is also why it is important to us to have with us today parliamentary delegations from such distant shores as Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexico. Their presence is much appreciated and I thank them again for coming all this way to take part in this debate.

I wish you, Secretary General, every success in carrying out your important responsibilities and I invite you to take the floor.

Mr GURRÍA (Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) said that it was an honour for him to address the Parliamentary Assembly. The title of the debate was appropriate because a core mission of the OECD was to make the world economy operate better. He noted that the OECD’s work was highly regarded. To continue to improve the impact of the OECD’s work, it was necessary to strengthen partnerships with parliamentarians such as those in the Assembly. He congratulated the rapporteur on his work, and was delighted that some representatives were able to be in Paris the next day for a seminar on growth and jobs.

(The speaker continued in English)

As Mr Cosidó noted in his report, the economies of the major OECD countries, including in Europe, are all expected to continue to grow in the next 18 months, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. We have had a pretty good run and it looks as though the rest of 2006 and 2007 will be benign – as economists have taken to describing the situation – although growth will slow. As a group, emerging economies continue to excel, with China and India in particular remaining major drivers of global expansion. However, while in the near future the global outlook is rather positive, I shall mention some of the risks that could threaten that benign scenario.

First, there is the question of oil prices. Both the OECD and its sister organisation, the International Energy Agency, are working to help countries to address the short-term and long-term challenges related to energy prices, security of supply and the question of alternative sources. By the way, the recent drop in prices is quite welcome and a bit of a relief.

Then there is the question of the so-called external imbalances. Current account imbalances have reached unprecedented levels in the United States. The position is more positive in China, Japan and other Asian countries as well as in many other oil-exporting countries. Although those imbalances have not yet caused much disruption, that cannot continue indefinitely. A disorderly unravelling of those imbalances could be quite disruptive and lead to a deterioration in expectations.

Thirdly, there is the risk of protectionism. We need to support a successful conclusion to the Doha Development Agenda. As OECD research clearly shows, there is room for large gains and further liberalisation in terms of poverty reduction and longer-term economic growth worldwide. That was well covered in the report. Failure successfully to conclude the Doha Round risks unleashing a wave of protectionism, from which all would lose.

In a similar vein there has been a resurgence of investment protectionism among OECD countries – our countries are doing it to our own countries. That is very worrying. The creation of national champions and governments intervening to stop what would normally be business transactions is also very worrying. It is basically a violation of the commitments on free trade and free investment flows to which we have all signed up in different agreements and conventions.

The fourth risk concerns the fact that in some countries house prices have increased considerably. There is a bit of a bubble, as it is called. Whether it is a bubble or inflation, and whether there will be a soft, a crash or another type of landing, the question is whether people will continue to feel rich because their houses are much more expensive and go and spend money on something else rather than housing. If the bubble bursts, they will not feel so rich and they will reduce their consumption and investment. They will not be buying more houses because interest rates will be a little higher. Housing has been a big driver of growth in many countries. That could cool off. People say that that may be one of the reasons why the United States economy is looking a little weaker.

Those are, let us say, the problems of yesterday. That is a description of what is happening today. What about the problems of tomorrow? Will they catch up with us very fast? Population ageing is perhaps the biggest challenge for many OECD countries. That means putting more emphasis on the sustainability of pension systems and the performance of health care systems. Today, the health economy represents about 10% of GDP in OECD countries as a whole, rising to nearly 15% in the United States. For that reason, I believe that health should be one of the new priority areas for the OECD.

There are many elements to the population ageing puzzle, including migration – that is one of the consequences. I am convinced that enlightened migration can be a win-win proposition for both sending and receiving countries, even if the movement of people is one of the most difficult aspects to manage globally. Emigrants from developing countries can contribute not just to the host society but by providing remittances that help consumption and reduce poverty. We should deal with migration in a way that is economically efficient. Regardless of the obvious political, moral and ethical implications of the question of migration, the question is how to get it right. How do we organise it so that it is a win-win proposition?

Even countries that have so far not experienced large migration flows, because of the climate, their location or language difficulties or because the people in the countries around them do not want to move to them – there may be more homogeneity in terms of the socio-economic situation – are now beginning to ask how they will deal with the problem. Leaders, presidents and prime ministers are asking the OECD to look hard at the question of migration. How can we provide for a soft landing on that delicate matter?

Let me say a few words about the Millennium Development Goals and some of the issues that they bring with them. Progress towards achieving those goals remains disappointing. Essentially we are talking about the need to tackle poverty. I have said this many times before and let me say it again, certainly for the first time in this forum: poverty is the ultimate systemic threat. We must deal with it, not merely on political or moral grounds, but because, if we do not fight poverty, our mandate of making the world economy work better will not succeed.

One of the ways of fighting poverty is to increase aid. A lot of promises have been made. Big amounts have reversed at least the nominal trends of the past. It looks better than last year and the year before in terms of flows, but increasing aid flows is not enough. We must ensure that aid is effective in helping to lift people out of poverty.

The Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness, adopted in 2005 and inspired by OECD work in that area, has become more and more important. The declaration sets out commitments for improving aid programmes with targets to measure progress in twelve specific areas. The OECD Development Assistance Committee has led a major international effort, which we expect will fundamentally change the way in which aid is channelled and accounted for.

That brings me to another of the Millennium Development Goals and to one of the new priorities: water and sanitation. Access to reliable supplies of clean water and sanitation services would help to achieve progress in virtually every Millennium Development Goal. Without water, life cannot exist. You cannot grow food. Without clean drinking water, you are prey to many water-borne illnesses. I have seen the impact that access to clean water and sanitation can have on the poorest – on women, their children, their lives and their dignity. It is imperative to guarantee clean water and sanitation to the billions who still do not have it. The OECD and the DAC should co-ordinate with the other official and non-official organisations in that endeavour.

While I am discussing issues of emerging and developing countries, it is perhaps a good time to mention the issue of new members of the OECD, the so-called enlargement problem and the OECD’s co-operation with non-member economies. I understand that that issue has been of great interest to the Parliamentary Assembly and that yesterday you approved a resolution to that effect. As you know,
the 1990s saw a wave of six new OECD member countries, starting with my country, Mexico, in 1994. The same period also saw a rapid development in the OECD’s co-operation with non-member countries. Following a recent OECD council decision on new governance structures for the organisation, last May, ministers agreed that it was essential to expand the OECD’s global reach and policy impact through an enlarged membership and enhanced engagement with important non-OCED economies.

The OECD Council is now hard at work identifying countries for potential accession and for enhanced engagement with the OECD. Ministers also asked me to develop new ideas and to be more proactive in approaching new members with a view to making the OECD a permanent hub for dialogue on global economic issues for member and non-member economies. Therefore, I welcome the Canadian amendment which sees the OECD as the hub of the globalisation process.

(The speaker continued in French)

At the start of his remarks he had touched on the biggest challenges to the OECD’s effectiveness. Many countries had well-designed reform strategies which had not been implemented or sustained because of their political and economic costs. Typically, the costs of reform were immediately apparent, whereas the benefits might only emerge over the longer term. Furthermore, the economic costs of reform might be felt by the stronger, better established groups within a population, but the benefits might be experienced by other groups. That was the challenge of economic reform.

The key issue was that governments needed to implement reforms without waiting for crises to emerge, but it was difficult for politicians to promote reform and still be elected. New partnerships with key players, such as the OECD and parliamentarians, were required in order to implement the reform agenda. The OECD was able to pool information based on the knowledge that the countries had gained through the successes and failures of programmes of economic reform. The OECD sought to propose a model of best practice based on that accumulated knowledge. In that context, he valued the opportunity to meet the members of the Assembly who were part and parcel of the law-making process and, as elected representatives, were the voices of citizens’ concerns. The OECD and Council of Europe made ideal partners to lay the basis for a coalition for reform.

(The speaker continued in English)

We are ready to ensure that this engagement does not happen only once a year.

It is a great privilege to address the Assembly. This is an important event for the health of the OECD. It is clear that you can use us and take advantage of the combined experiences of 30 democracies. We already work with about 60 countries around the world in addition to those 30 democracies. You should see us as an extension of your work and services. We are here, literally, to serve you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Gurría.

Once again, I underline that you are before an audience of freely elected members from 46 European countries. We are grateful to you for your comprehensive overview of the world economy.

We now come to the list of speakers. We will suspend the speakers list briefly at around 4.30 p.m. to allow Mr Gurría to respond to the debate.

I call Mr Högmark, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Europe People’s Party.

Mr HÖGMARK (Sweden). – On behalf of the Group of the Europe People’s Party, I thank the rapporteur for a good and comprehensive report. I also thank the delegations from Canada, Mexico, Japan and Korea for their valuable contributions to our common meetings. In addition, I extend my thanks to the OECD for the help and contribution offered by the Secretary General, Mr Angel Gurría, and his staff. It was a pleasure to listen to his speech, which reflected our human values.

The report describes the situation of the world economy in rather bright colours. Many growing economies all over the world are a strength for the global economy. However, we must consider the threats against, and the possibilities offered by, the development and stabilisation of a broad growth in the world economy, and what minimises the risk of disturbance.

The first consideration is local and regional conflicts and, of course, the threat of serious terror attacks. Those could quickly shift the conditions in the worldwide economy. We therefore must try to build a more tolerant world in which dialogue and negotiation between different opinions and groups is the normal way to behave, so that we reduce the power of fundamentalists. From the European point of view, a deepening dialogue between Muslims and Christians is extremely important.

The second consideration is the energy situation. We have diminishing energy resources and energy is becoming increasingly expensive. That is a threat in political, economical and environmental terms. The latter is linked to obligations in the Kyoto Protocol. I am convinced that the environment will become more important in developing the world economy. It offers possibilities for the economy as we develop new techniques and so on. It is important to stress the possibilities that are linked to the environmental challenges.

The third consideration is the water situation around the world, which is very worrying. Increasingly, we see signs of a lack of fresh water and a lack of water for irrigation. It is a problem not only in China, and is becoming more and more acute. Dramatic improvements in water management, with much better efficiency in water usage, and co-operation between countries must become a priority.

Let me say something about the possibilities. In an open global economy, trade is one of the most important factors for creating economic prosperity, but it must be fair. It is extremely important to open up markets to developing countries. The Doha round of talks must start again.

In an open world, the mobility of the labour force is important, and I am not talking about intense migration. A good and improved neighbourhood policy in both Europe and other regions of the world could reduce the need for such intense migration. A growing world economy really needs to use all resources. It is a shame that, today in 2006, millions and millions of girls and boys are prevented by illiteracy from developing their skills. Investment in education and vocations is therefore of the utmost importance, not only in terms of human rights, but economically.

Millions of unemployed people are also prepared to contribute to the growth of the economy. Millions and millions of women live their lives without respect or dignity. The gender perspective is important in developing the economy all over the world. Let us not forget the importance of elementary health care.

The fight against corruption and the trafficking of human beings is also a very important issue and a precondition for good governance. Good governance also includes good will to distribute welfare among citizens.

Mr President, to use all resources better is a question of not only economics but morals based on the principles of human rights. Our young generation, not only in Europe but in the whole world, would like to see political action taken to realise such a vision. The Council of Europe, the European Union and of course the OECD have an important role to play in that work. Thank you, Mr President.

(Mr Gardetto, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Högmark. I call Mrs Veenendaal, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mrs VEENENDAAL (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. Mr Cosidó’s report “The OECD and the world economy” is a very liberal one. In paragraph 3 of the draft resolution the rapporteur points out, “The Enlarged Assembly considers that the liberalisation of international trade is one of the most effective measures for stimulating world growth.” The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe would like to thank the rapporteur for this excellent report.

Dear colleagues, this report points out that one of the most important issues for the future is energy – energy in all its forms: oil, natural gas, nuclear possibilities and alternative energy, and please let us not forget water.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has asked the Assembly time and again to speak on the issue of energy supply in Europe. At the beginning of this year, we asked for an urgent debate on “using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure”. The Assembly turned that debate into a report, which is being worked on at the moment.

Mr Cosidó’s report makes it very clear that energy supply – most particularly energy-efficient industry – is of the utmost importance. The report makes it clear that not much attention is paid to the growth in energy demand. Mr Cosidó’s report mentions that there is a growth in demand, but no remarks were made about how we can cut that demand.

What should we do to be as efficient as possible in our energy use? Our energy supply is important for growth and we therefore need to use the available resources for as long as possible. We have to find a way to use oil and gas supplies as efficiently as possible. That would have several benefits for all member states of the Assembly.

Russia could sell more gas, for example, if it could find a way to use less itself. It is understandable that Russia – a country with big natural gas resources – does not consider that saving energy is an important issue, but it is.

For too long, Europe and the world’s energy debate has focused on ways of increasing energy production to cope with rising energy demand. However, the huge potential for making energy savings through greater efficiency in its use has generally been overlooked. That is so in many Council of Europe member states, especially those in central, eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

As the wide differences in energy efficiency between European countries amply shows, energy savings and lower energy consumption and prices can ensure continued supply much more efficiently than increasing energy production. Furthermore, energy saving benefits energy-producing countries and those to whom they may export, since the energy resources last longer. Energy-exporting countries can thereby benefit from the additional revenue generated by the enhanced sales of their resources.

Finally, energy production and sales do not in themselves give rise to much economic activity, including employment, whereas investing in energy saving does.

Council of Europe member states should devote considerably more attention to the huge potential for energy saving that exists in many countries before they take costly measures to increase production. One method of doing so would be to follow the example set by the countries that are most advanced in this regard.

The member states of the Assembly should make energy efficiency a priority. New information, which was brought to us yesterday in a special meeting of the Political Affairs Committee, shows that the use of energy is high in winter – we all understand that – but the level is now also high in summer because of the use of electricity for air conditioners. I do not think that we should stop using air conditioners, but we should consider the use of energy for those products.

Colleagues, we need energy not only for our economies, but for our well-being. I think that one thing is missing from the report: how does the economy influence the development of countries? In other words, what is the relation between our core business – human rights and democracy – and the economy? Will the rapporteur say something about the relationship between those things? Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Veenendaal. I call Mr Walter, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – Mr President, on behalf of the European Democratic Group, I welcome this annual debate on the OECD, and I start by commending the OECD for its work, its professionalism and the systematic way in which it assesses the world’s economies. It is often at variance with the Finance Ministers of its member governments in their assessment of their own economies.

I also welcome Mr Gurría’s contribution today, which I found fascinating. I also want to thank our colleague, Mr Cosidó, the rapporteur, for the draft resolution that we have before us. A lot of work has gone into this report. It is a good draft resolution. The committee and the Observer states have delivered a good report to us today.

Mr President, I want to highlight what I perceive to be two challenges in the report. The first challenge is what I would describe as the comfort gap, or the wealth gap: the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations of the world, between the developed industrialised nations – in fact, the OECD
itself – and those nations where people still live in abject poverty, mainly in Africa. That is reflected, of course, in some of the contributions that have been made, particularly the contribution from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. That is reflected in the problems that we in Europe specifically now see on our southern shores in the migration flows coming north from Africa.

The second challenge highlighted in the report is what I would describe as the growth gap: comparing the somewhat sluggish growth of our eurozone economies with the very vibrant growth of economies such as China and India and, to some extent, Brazil.

However, I want particularly to highlight paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. I believe that the rich nations of the world should be ashamed of the breakdown of the Doha process. This trade round was just one small step in trying to use trade as a pathway to alleviating poverty in the developing world. We in Europe, of course, can point to the United States, but I am afraid that we are very much part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

It is obscene that over many years we have erected tariff barriers against our poorest cousins, particularly in respect of added-value food products. Opening our markets to them would represent the difference between our developing friends merely working within a system of subsistence agriculture and having the opportunity to enhance their economies. I have said before in this Assembly that it is quite obscene that we in Europe use €50 billion a year of our taxpayers’ money for hand-outs to enable our farmers and rural businesses simply to exist in the countryside.

I know that, according to the Doha terms, such hand-outs are not strictly trade distorting but, however we dress it up, they create a cushion of comfort that is not available to our poorer Third World partners. There is no time today to address the United States and Japan on these subjects. We in the OECD have a responsibility to use the strength of our world economy. We have the power to break the collective Doha deadlock, and I believe that all OECD members have a responsibility to open our markets and share our prosperity with the whole world – particularly the poorer parts of the world. I believe in free trade and fair trade for all and not just for the few.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. I congratulate the Secretary General, Angel Gurría, on his new job and on his very interesting contribution to today’s debate. His predecessor, Donald Johnston, reminded us in last year’s debate that we cannot have social progress without economic progress. I agree about that relationship between economy and society. Does the new Secretary General agree with my opinion that economic progress should lead to social progress and that, if not, something should be changed in the economic process? Does he agree with our conclusion that although we now fortunately notice economic progress in many countries, we still see social deterioration in many of those countries, involving an increasing gap between rich and poor, and huge social problems for unemployed, elderly, disabled, poor and immigrant citizens? Does he therefore agree that it would be wise, after all the neo-liberal experiments of recent years, for us to decide that we will no longer allow our future to depend totally on the invisible hand of the market and that we, our governments and our politicians, should intervene if and when necessary in the economies of our countries to guarantee that economic progress really leads to social improvement?

This relationship should be guaranteed not only in the member states but worldwide, and the OECD should do its utmost to contribute to that. The Secretary General, who stated in a recent interview that his organisation should have a global reach, surely knows that when his organisation was founded in 1960, one of the formulated goals was that the economically advanced countries should co-operate in assisting to the best of their abilities countries in the process of economic development.

I am aware of the many good things that the OECD is doing but, Mr Secretary General, how is it that we nevertheless notice a frightening and increasing worldwide gap between the rich and poor countries, as paragraph 8 of the draft resolution states? I want to ask both the rapporteur and the Secretary General whether they believe that the proposal in that paragraph for more funds for co-operation and development aid and a far-reaching re-orientation of that aid will be adopted by the member states. We in the Group of the Unified European Left do not see any such improvement at the moment. In fact, most member states do not even stick to their actual commitments on development aid. Anyone here in the Assembly who accepts this draft resolution – the Group of the Unified European Left is willing to do that, although we could make many critical comments on the explanatory memorandum – is obliged to promote this proposal of the rapporteur in his or her national parliament. Poverty is the ultimate threat to economies and societies, as the Secretary General rightly said.

I read the Secretary General’s opinion that if the OECD did not exist, we would have to create an institution just like it. Let us imagine for a moment that it did not exist and that we had to create an organisation for economic co-operation and development. Would the Secretary General propose to have the same members, thereby allowing the OECD to remain an organisation of the 30 rich countries of the world? Or would he use the opportunity to open the organisation to all countries that share a commitment to democratic government and the market economy – in other words, half the countries represented in this Assembly? They are not presently represented in the OECD.

Of course, I am also interested in the opinion of Rapporteur Cosidó, and I want to ask him whether he supports our proposal that in next year’s report we come back to this issue of enlarging the OECD and the possibility of making it a real global organisation. We should also then be able to take into account the results of the next ministerial meeting in 2007 and the proposals of the Secretary General, who has been invited by OECD ministers to develop new ideas on enlargement.

Reacting to this report, I agree with the rapporteur that we face many challenges. Does he agree, however, that there is more than one solution, and that any solution is therefore a political choice and not merely an economic inevitability? In paragraph 11 of the draft resolution, he advises that the European response to such challenges “must not be a race for lowering of social standards. Peace, prosperity and social cohesion are based on the protection of those high standards, well said, Mr Rapporteur! That has also been well said by other rapporteurs. But please could you explain to us whether this suggestion is really taken seriously by the member states? In our opinion, that is not happening – indeed, we see the opposite happening. I look forward to hearing your response and that of the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Barnett, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mrs BARNETT (Germany) said that the rapporteur had produced a balanced and wide-ranging text. The report’s analysis was accepted by the Socialist Group. While trade and liberalisation made essential contributions to development, they would fail if left unbridled, as was demonstrated at Doha. Dismantling trade subsidies would lead to fairer trade and the prospects of economic progress in the developing world would solve some of the problems of migration.

In Europe, technology existed to make massive energy savings and to protect clean air. The development of biomass, wind and sun technologies would contribute to employment and to the environment. Experts and technicians would be needed, and the population in Europe was shrinking, which should enhance the employment prospects of individuals. Life-long learning should be promoted and the elderly should not be pushed out of employment. Training must begin early and continue throughout an employee’s career. Experience gained in other countries should be promoted as it contributed to mobility and international co-operation. A social safety net must be put in place, to common standards, to protect those who worked in different countries. As a very minimum, International Labour Organization standards should be enforced worldwide. She wondered to what extent pensions could be made exportable. It would be necessary to tackle new issues such as those.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Geghamyan.

Mr GEGHAMYAN (Armenia) stressed the exceptional topicality of the issues under discussion and recalled the trials and tribulations of economic development in Armenia over recent years. Armenia had begun to implement market reforms when independence was proclaimed and, as the basis of its economic reform, had adopted a liberal financial system with three pillars: privatisation, market liberalisation and fiscal prudence. The reform programme had been based on the ideas of the Washington consensus devised in the 1980s. As a result of adopting that reform agenda, however, the Armenian economy had virtually collapsed. Particular features of the collapse had been the pillaging of state property and the outflow of qualified manpower. The Armenian economy had not yet recovered from the damage caused by the reform programme.

He noted that Joseph Stiglitz, in his book Globalisation and its discontents, had highlighted the dangers inherent in developing countries pursuing the Washington consensus: dynamite was embedded in the global economy. OECD policy frequently served the enrichment of more prosperous states at the expense of developing economies. The OECD had a historic responsibility to ensure the harmonious development of the global economy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Murata.

Mr MURATA (Observer from Japan) said that the world economy had grown but the current increase in the price of energy was a growing concern. Changes in the world made the time right for the OECD to extend and broaden its role. Emerging economies, outside the OECD, should adopt a position in which they were able to become responsible stakeholders in the world economy. He stressed the importance of transparency and the development of new proposals to tackle issues such as energy, the environment and poverty reduction. The participation and input of as many countries as possible, including non-OECD countries, were vital to the future development of the world economy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Papadopoulos.

Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – I, too, welcome Mr Gurría and the other delegations participating in the enlarged parliamentary debate. I congratulate the rapporteur on a well-documented report, which gives an objective overview of the significant rebounding of the world economy. Key economies show increasing world trade, real GDP growth, overall price stability – despite the high price of oil – and strong performances by companies and financial markets. However, worries persist because of energy-induced inflation, tightening of monetary policies, increasing interest rates, current account deficits and public debt.

A critical look at the challenges and corrective actions needed reveals the following. High energy prices, inflation, trade and fiscal imbalances, political risks and illegal migration necessitate balanced corrective action and adequate socio-economic fiscal policies. Europe’s energy vulnerability, high oil prices and the rising global competition for energy sources present significant security risks. Additional investment is needed in research and development of alternative energy systems.

In the European Union, pressures on social security systems and the need for greater flexibility in labour markets require far-reaching reforms. A strong worldwide commitment to good corporate governance is vital for maintaining market confidence, financial stability and overall economic performance. The OECD’s revised principles of good corporate governance provide a sound framework for a joint OECD/World Bank effort in that direction. New types of risk, such as terrorism and natural disasters, need to be addressed effectively.

The inability to conclude the Doha Development Agenda is a major setback for the world economy, especially for developing economies which stand to gain two thirds of the increase in world income from trade facilitation. Persistent trade barriers undermine the free market and strengthen trade imbalances, thus increasing the existing gap between rich and poor countries. We need the true political will to correct the uneven trade landscape. We endorse the OECD’s view that the Doha Agreement must be concluded as soon as possible and trade liberalisation maintained in a measurable and transparent way.

We underline the importance of imposing the effectiveness of international aid to close the gap between rich and poor countries. This presupposes good planning, effective control mechanisms, wise allocation of educational and health care resources, good governance and the combating of corruption.

We underline the OECD’s efforts – indeed, its duty – to develop programmes and policies ensuring that globalisation benefits all countries; to boost the ability of recipient countries to absorb foreign aid; to undertake anti-corruption initiatives in partnership with the European Union and the Council of Europe; and to promote relevant policies, such as the “Encouraging Innovation” and “Going for Growth” projects, which aim to accelerate economic growth.

The delays in achieving the United Nations millennium goals and the European Union’s Lisbon Agenda targets, as well as the complexity of the globalised economy, emphasise the need for international co-operation and concerted action. Structural reforms and new imaginative policies are necessary to maintain growth and achieve sustainable development. OECD countries should abide by the recently revised principles of corporate governance. They should also meet the agreed environmental goals and take steps to ensure that globalisation benefits all countries, especially the poorer ones, in the interests of international peace and stability.

The challenges ahead are numerous. All of us must work together to find intelligent solutions, without lowering social standards or forgetting that economic and social development must always be bound up with democracy, political liberty and human rights for all, without discrimination.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Grignon.

Mr GRIGNON (France) welcomed the debate on the OECD and stressed the importance of continuing with multilateral trade talks. He emphasised the importance of achieving transparency in world capital markets and a stable legal framework. It was not possible to ignore the impact of uncontrolled migratory flows. It was necessary to try and create sustainable jobs in migrants’ countries of origin and develop skills. In that context, the development of education provision and investment in human beings was the sine qua non. As a result, jobs could be created in developing countries.

On the issue of energy, there had been significant fluctuations in energy prices. France was looking to alternative fuels such as biomass. A comprehensive policy must also reach out to China, India and Russia.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Hunault.

Mr HUNAULT (France) said that in the framework of this annual debate he wished to commend the quality of the report and the address by the Secretary General.

Never had the world experienced such sustained growth as in 2005 and 2006, especially in Asia, and despite the threats of inflation and rising fuel prices. However, such growth increased a more serious imbalance – the gap between rich and poor. Two billion people lived in extreme poverty. Many sought a new life, but no law would end the migration of people seeking an escape from poverty. Therefore, the world needed a fairer economy.

There was a close relationship between poverty and corruption. Financial flows must be examined as part of the fight against corruption. Often aid to less economically developed countries was diverted from its target because of corruption. Increased investment was needed in education and in the provision of access to drinking water. The efficiencies of financial institutions must also be examined. Changes must be made. He had been asked to write a report on the feasibility of a Euro-Mediterranean bank for the benefit of that region. If implemented, that would initiate a new type of financial institution.

Hatred, terrorism and conflicts prospered as a result of poverty. Demographic imbalances in some countries meant that increasingly ageing populations were dependent on pensions. The Assembly needed to call for the construction of a new economic order and create more efficient political, legal and financial institutions.

The Secretary General in his address had asked for ideas. One idea was that institutions should be examined: more institutions should be created to study the global economy, with the aim of bringing prosperity and benefiting all countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Ho-Sung.

Mr HO-SUNG (Observer from Korea). – Honourable President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, honourable Secretary General of the OECD, honourable Mr Cosidó and delegates from around the world, I am very honoured to have the opportunity to participate in this Assembly on behalf of the Korean National Assembly.

Yesterday morning’s meeting of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development of the Council of Europe was a good forum for parliamentarians to reaffirm their keen interest in the world economy and to exchange their insights on it. In that regard, I pay tribute to Mr Cosidó for his efforts in presenting a wonderful report on the world economy.

In the first half of this year, Korea’s economic growth rate was 5.7%. As for the latter half of this year, there is a mixed outlook. Some say a growth rate of 5% is possible with recent stable oil prices and exchange rates. In contrast, some have a negative outlook, expecting a growth rate of between 4.7% and 4.8% due to the poor current account surplus and the balance deficit. Of course, the economic outlook is diverse, with so many variables, but optimists and pessimists agree on one thing: the sluggish growth potential of the Korean economy.

Although sluggish growth potential is the phenomenon of a mature economy, the income gap between developed countries and Korea is still huge, despite Korea’s remarkable economic development. Worse, a low birth rate and ageing population, as well as the bipolarisation of Korean society after the bail-out by the International Monetary Fund, darken the future of the Korean economy.

To tackle those problems, the Korean economy should be rapidly transformed into an innovation-led economy. We should overcome the problems stemming from a low birth rate and ageing population by engaging more women in the labour market and by increasing the birth rate. In addition, for the change to the innovation-led economy, Korea should enhance investment efficiency through sophisticated quality investment in research and development, and encourage competition by lifting entry barriers and by innovations in regulations.

Being aware of the gravity of the problems of a low birth and ageing population, the Korean National Assembly set up the Special Committee on a Low Birth Rate and Ageing Population to enact and implement the Basic Act on Low Birth Rate and Ageing Population.

The Korean National Assembly also enacted a law on promoting foreign investment, with a view to attracting more investment to the country. In addition to the determination to resolve the bipolarisation of Korean society, we will make every effort to allocate more money to enhancing growth potential when we deliberate on the budget next year.

My fellow parliamentarians, you are well aware that Korea achieved unprecedented and remarkable economic growth at the same time as it became a democracy. As I said, the Korean economy is at a crossroads, but I am convinced that Korea will upgrade itself and reach a higher level with the right decision and much effort.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Ho-Sung. I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal). – I want to express my support for the excellent report produced by Mr Cosidó. The draft resolution gives rise to two comments and one objection, which I will explain later when we vote on amendment No. 1.

Paragraph 4 relates to the need for stability and transparency in the global capital market. The world’s financial system is less transparent than it has ever been. “Speculation” is the key word for the huge profits that escape fiscal or institutional control. Investment funds, in particular the so-called “hedge” funds domiciled in the Cayman Islands and other “offshore paradises”, are estimated to generate more than $600 billion every day. Imagine what aid could be given to poor countries if Mr Tobin’s ideas were applied to that enormous turnover. Even institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are admitting that they are alarmed to see such financial supermarkets for the super-rich people as they operate outside any kind of control, including fiscal control.

These funds are created and destroyed every day. There are more than 10 000 of them. From time to time, the alarm sounds, but politicians are not interested in hearing it. Let us consider the case of the Amaranth Advisers Fund. A couple of weeks ago, it lost more than half its capital in a single weekend.

Fund managers are remunerated according to the profits generated, so the temptation to take higher risks increases. Some people do not like this phrase – I do not like it – but a “big bang” is not totally off the table. A downturn in the developed countries might explain the fall in the real estate industry in western countries, the shortening of real income among the working classes and the weakening of the pouvoir d’achat of the middle classes, but many economists point out that developed economies will grow in the next five years at a median rate of 2.7%. However, the so-called emerging economies – China and India – are expected to grow at a yearly rate of 6.8%. If that gap continues over the next 20 years – this is an academic hypothesis – China, India and their southern Asian partners will control two thirds of the world’s production and markets.

There is nothing new about that. In the 19th century, China and India were the two biggest economies, but they lost the battle of technology. Will they lose it again, or will they be able to introduce structural reforms in education, productivity and financial systems, in innovation, research and development, and the fight against corruption, and will they be able to guarantee human rights, reform fiscal systems and ensure justice and democracy? If they manage that, the bloc of emerging economies that covers 80% of the population, and accounts for 65% of foreign currency exchanges, 50% of energy consumption and 43% of world exports, will dominate the world in 20 years’ time. A new economic order will be built, and many of the premises on which the OECD is based will have to be severely altered.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Özal.

Mr ÖZAL (Turkey). – I congratulate our colleague, Mr Cosidó, on his detailed report examining trends in the world economy. I also thank Secretary General Gurría for his comprehensive statement. The Assembly brings together representatives of members and non-members of the OECD. Therefore, they can all draw conclusions from this report and benefit from it. I find the report and the debate very important.

There is a continued resilience in the world economy after the challenges of long-term energy price increases, incipient inflation, the need to preserve global financial stability and trade liberalisation. However, despite that resilience, some dangers are looming. One of them, as rightly reflected in the report, is the high price of oil. Although that has not had a dramatic impact on the world economy so far, the high level of oil prices poses an important risk for the world economy. We hope that the recent decrease in prices continues.

I also agree with the rapporteur’s view that governments should place far more emphasis on encouraging research and development on renewable energy resources. In addition to such supply-side efforts, improving energy efficiency deserves more attention. In that context, I should underline that Turkey’s energy policy is based on the diversification of its energy resources and improving energy efficiency.

Another danger for the world economy is the slow process of trade liberalisation. As noted in the report, ever since the post-war foundation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the liberalisation of trade has been a vital element in the world’s economic growth. However, it is extremely disappointing that the Doha development round negotiations were suspended as a result of the persistent differences among the negotiating positions. I hope that the major trading partners will not let the opportunity of creating a more competitive and fair international trading system slip away. I sincerely wish that the negotiating partners would review their positions, evaluate the consequences of a permanent failure and concentrate on bridging the divergences so that they can restart the negotiations as soon as possible.

Corruption is another issue on which we should dwell. A substantial collaborative effort against corruption has been undertaken in recent years. The work of the OECD in partnership with the European Union and the Council of Europe in initiating anti-corruption principles and a detailed code of conduct, as well as a series of specific conventions relating to corruption, is greatly appreciated. I welcome initiatives such as adopting a broad interpretation of corrupt practice so that it covers trafficking as well as passive and active forms of domestic and foreign bribery.

The report rightly mentions that democracy, political liberty and human rights are inseparable from economic and social development. All Council of Europe and OECD member states should reaffirm their commitment to democratic and human rights principles and values, and step up their efforts to raise awareness of them across the globe. Those values should be strongly attached to our political priorities.

Finally, I want to underline another important point that deserves attention. Although it is our duty to record the resumption of strong and healthy economic growth in large parts of OECD areas, it is also our duty to urge some caution if much of that economic recovery is likely to be gained at a cost to our environment. Therefore, we should be vigilant and not forget that all of us owe our children a better world to live in.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next speaker is not present, so I call Mrs Milne.

Mrs MILNE (Observer from Canada). – Thank you, Mr President. I want to thank Mr Cosidó for a very good report. He has provided us with an excellent overview of the key trends and challenges in the global economy. In many ways, the underlying theme of his report is the need for greater and more effective international co-operation. That is perhaps the single most important prerequisite for finding ways of addressing the key challenges facing the global economy.

Although the Doha round of trade negotiations was suspended this summer, efforts elsewhere are somewhat more promising. With respect to the needs of poor countries, some progress has been made towards implementing the international consensus on the future direction of development aid. Also, as Mr Gurría told us, the OECD is demonstrating a willingness to take on a greater role globally, both through enlargement and through enhanced engagement with non-members. Mr Murata has mentioned India, Russia, Brazil and China.

The growing global importance of the OECD, as a co-ordinator of policies and as a policy research and development organisation, tells me that we need to consider ways of strengthening the relationship between parliamentarians and the OECD – some way of extending it beyond this enlarged Assembly.

For Canadian parliamentarians, the Assembly and the meetings of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development provide important opportunities to work with our colleagues from Europe, Mexico, Japan and the Republic of Korea on difficult issues concerning the global economy and the work of the OECD. We do not always agree with each other, but the willingness of the committee members, observers and overseas delegations attending this fall session to work together demonstrates the importance of such political dialogue.

I therefore urge my colleagues from Japan and the Republic of Korea, but also parliamentarians from those countries not represented here today, to work within the Assembly on a more regular basis, particularly in its work with the OECD – Mexico already does so. I remind everyone that the Assembly laid the foundation for such co-operation by adopting a resolution and a recommendation on the external relations of the Council of Europe in June this year. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Milne. As Mr Dragassakis and Ms Pashayeva are not here, I call Mr Tilson.

Mr TILSON (Observer from Canada). – Thank you, Mr President. I want to join previous speakers in congratulating Mr Cosidó on a very good report. In particular, I want to highlight the emphasis that he places on trade liberalisation as the most effective measure for stimulating growth and development.

Canadians were extremely disappointed at the impasse reached in the Doha negotiations this summer, especially with regard to the agriculture negotiations. We have an open economy, and our goal is to create a more level international playing field through the elimination of export subsidies, the substantial reduction of trade-distorting domestic support and real and significant improvements in market access. We strongly support trade liberalisation in agriculture both because it would benefit our agriculture producers and processors and because it is urgently needed to improve the prospects for developing countries. Let us not forget that our governments committed themselves to developing an “open trading and financial system that is rules-based, predictable and non-discriminatory” when they signed up to the historic United Nations Millennium Development Goals in 2000.

I also want to note the favourable mention of Canada’s economic performance and prospects in Mr Cosidó’s report. Too often, discussions on economic policies and performance focus on the biggest economies – the United States, the European Union and Japan.

It is worth pointing out that, in Canada, we have managed the difficult balancing act of consolidating our fiscal situation while maintaining a commitment to public programmes in education, health care and other areas. That has not been easy, but as a result, we have consistently had a budget surplus over several years and we have achieved substantial reductions in public debt. This in turn has allowed us to reinvest in public programmes while lowering taxes at the same time, thus stimulating growth. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Tilson. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Gurría to respond briefly to the various speakers. You have four minutes.

Mr GURRÍA. – Thank you, Mr President. I thank all the speakers for the comments on Mr Cosidó’s report. Again, I should like to join in their praise and acknowledgment for the report and for the work of the OECD.

There are some common themes, one of which is the question of co-operation. In the words of Mrs Milne, greater international co-operation is needed. Yes, I would subscribe to that view – I think that that is very good shorthand for the discussions that have taken place. The potential of such an approach is very great, and the cross-border effect on the very poorest is important.

The second common theme is the question of trade. We can reach a conclusion on Doha. We can do it. We can get closer to what is required in Doha. We should just keep at it. We should not give up. Frankly, this is low-hanging fruit. How are we going to deal with poverty and AIDS, how are we going to deal with climate change, and how are we going to deal with the Middle East if we cannot do Doha? That would be a sign that we cannot organise the world and have a minimum of rules in the world. We need rules. We need order, and we need some predictability. Therefore, we should keep at it – it is do-able.

I do not think that, because of a few billion dollars of price support and a few points of protection, we are going to fail. I think that we can do it. Let us remember that Doha involves about $100 billion of trade liberalisation benefits, about $500 billion-worth of benefits in opening services and about $100 billion more in terms of trade facilitation, as we have calculated, demonstrated and published. But that mostly accrues to developing countries – about two thirds of it – so it is much bigger than any amount of aid. It is certainly even bigger than the remittances. It is very important; the potential is very big.

Another recurring theme is energy. The problem is that, in the next three or four years,
we are going to double the amount of energy that we consume. The measurements are from 15 to 30 terras – whatever a terra is – so double what we use today. From what we know today, about 70% will come from fossil fuels, so it will be full of carbon emissions. That is going to warm the world and create a lot of problems, and we should avoid it.

Clearly, the problem is that it sounds good to talk about the alternative sources of energy, but they will not go very far. Nuclear energy has some potential, but clearly efficiency savings are probably the single most important issue. We have to keep at that.

The question of education is crucial – education, education, education. That is the key to the future development of the poorest countries in the world.

I should also like to comment on what the German delegate, Mrs Barnett, said. As has been mentioned in respect of the Lisbon strategy, we have a problem with the issue of ageing. The question of ageing is not just one of aged people needing care; it is also a very critical issue concerning the portability of pensions – the capacity to transfer pensions from one person to another.

Another issue is that the systems can encourage people to stay unemployed. Today, many of the systems in the EU actually encourage to stay unemployed if they cannot find jobs.

Last but not least, I should like to say simply that there are some very important success stories that illustrate the importance of education and of research and development, and they have occurred systematically over the past 15 years. Let us consider the history of Korea. Three years ago, Korea was poorer than Mexico, but it now has a per capita GDP double that of Mexico. There is the growth of Finland and Ireland – countries that were considered very poor before – but they are now shining examples. The fact is that Canada has a surplus and can still nurture the safety net, and it can still nurture flexibility, rather than having a strong system for creating jobs.

Those are success stories. They are in our midst. We can replicate them and together we can help the poorest part of mankind, which, unfortunately, means most of the men and women on this planet.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you very much, Mr Secretary General, for your contribution to this debate and for having modified your travel plans to be with us today.

I call the rapporteur, Mr Cosidó.

Mr COSIDÓ (Spain) said that there was a high level of agreement on the necessity of reform, which was important.

He agreed with the point made by the Liberal Group: it was necessary to emphasise consumption, as well as production, of energy. He agreed that the economic dimension of human rights was important and that problems such as bonded labour must be addressed. Political and economic freedoms went hand in hand.

In reply to Mr Kox, he noted that development co-operation was vital and the OECD’s leadership was not disputed.

Replying to Mrs Barnett, he said that the report had sought to be balanced and consistent. It was necessary to reform European economic systems and the welfare state. Welfare payments might need to be reduced, while safeguarding the principal of social protection.

Another speaker had said that politicians should be optimistic when economists were pessimistic. But the politicians who did not listen to economists tended to lose elections. The clear message to governments from the debate was against protectionism and in support of economic and social reform. European economies must at the same time face up to globalisation and deal with poverty.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – Thank you to the rapporteur, the representatives of the parliamentary committees and the delegates from Korea, Japan, Canada and Mexico. We also thank Mr Gurría for being here. We look forward to having a good dialogue on this matter on a regular basis and to establishing further co-ordination between the Council of Europe and the OECD so that we can meet today’s challenges in the best possible way.

The PRESIDENT (Translation). – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development has presented a draft resolution, contained in Document 11012, to which one amendment has been tabled.

Voting will be by show of hands to allow delegates from non-European members of the OECD to participate in the votes.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr José Mendes Bota, Mrs Maria Manuela de Melo, Mrs Maria de Belém Roseira, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, Mr Ricardo Rodrigues and Mrs Ana Catarina Mendonça, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, delete the words “An increase in oil extraction and refinement capacity would also be necessary in the short and medium term.”

I call Mr Mendes Bota to support Amendment No. 1. You have one minute.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal). – The effects of global warming are all around us, including the destruction of human life and property in villages and big cities. This is the result of one century of economic growth based on oil as its main source but also as the main polluter. The governments of many developed countries are making serious efforts to make their economies less dependent on oil. It is therefore contradictory to the text of the report, to the spirit of the rapporteur and to paragraph 7 of the draft resolution itself that this Assembly should accept an increase in oil extraction and refining as an inevitable solution, in either the short or the medium term. It sounds like an incentive but it would send out the wrong signal. The petrol lobby would be grateful.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Haupert to speak against the amendment. You have one minute.

Mr HAUPERT (Luxembourg) said that the report had stated that an increase in energy prices was putting the brake on economic development but had also suggested alternative sources of energy. In the short to medium term, an increase in oil extraction was not incompatible with that perspective.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – The amendment was rejected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We will now proceed to a vote. Will those in favour of the amendment please raise their hands?

Will those in favour of the amendment please raise their hands?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal). – On a point of order, Mr President. As far as we understood it, the first vote was in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Yes, that is correct. We have not yet counted all the votes. We are still on the same vote – those in favour of the amendment.

Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) (Translation). – May I just ask whether it would be more practical for us to vote by electronic means, and then to add the votes of those non-European members who are voting by hand?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I am told that that is not possible. We will now proceed to a vote.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11012.

The draft resolution in Document 11012 is adopted unanimously.

5. The Cultural situation of the Kurds

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The final item of business this afternoon is the debate on “The cultural situation of the Kurds”, presented by Lord Russell-Johnston on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Document 11006, followed by the vote on the draft resolution.

The list of speakers closed at 12 noon today. Ten names are on the list, and seven amendments have been tabled.

I call Lord Russell-Johnston, rapporteur. He has eight minutes.

LORD RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – Yesterday evening, here in this Hemicycle, we had a debate on the looming budgetary crisis. In my opinion, the success of this Assembly and the enormous added value that it provides for the development and oversight of human rights among our member states – and the example that that sets worldwide – are made possible only by the talent and exceptional dedication of our permanent staff. I therefore begin by thanking and praising my friend of many years, João Ary, the secretary of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, without whom the production of this complex and, I believe, informative report would not have been possible.

In preparing the report, the committee decided that as far as possible it would concentrate exclusively on the cultural situation of the Kurds, and would not seek to enter into the many arguments about their political situation. That is very difficult, as in all societies his or her culture is very often the politician’s badge, and the political situation does, after all, determine the extent of cultural freedom. I am not blind to those who say that this may be a little unrealistic, but we have tried. That is why such a large section of my explanatory memorandum is devoted to history, language and literature. I felt that it was fundamentally important to set out the longstanding and distinctive cultural characteristics of the Kurds and their significance, as there are those who have denied that significance in the past and may even do so still.

The report is based on a visit to Turkey. We went to the east, and also to Ankara and Istanbul, in June 2004. During those visits, the Turkish authorities were most helpful. There was also a hearing organised by the committee in Paris in January this year with Kurds from Iran, Iraq and Syria, and from the diaspora. There were also personal contacts and bibliography.

Let me say in parenthesis that I wanted to go to northern Iraq when I visited eastern
Turkey – it was, after all, only a short car journey away – but I was told that that would not be possible. I remember that a higher official of our Organisation – I shall not name the person – said that that was not a political decision, but a matter of insurance. As I do not think that I am very valuable in insurance terms, it must have been João. Iran and Syria were also ruled out, mainly because of the difficulty of disentangling culture and politics in those countries. Therefore, we have concentrated on Turkey.

The current situation of the Kurds in those countries varies a great deal, from having no rights at all in Syria, which was the country most criticised, to almost complete autonomy in northern Iraq. They have some rights in Iran and more in Turkey. It should be noted that, of those countries, Turkey is the only one that is a democracy. That is a political point, not a cultural one, but it is a fact.

Turkey, as a member of the Council of Europe, is our natural interlocutor and therefore the resolution is more detailed with regard to Turkey. Nevertheless, the governments of Iran, Iraq and Syria should address the issue of Kurdish culture and the report of the debate should be drawn to the attention of their governments.

I visited Turkey in a period of hope. The release from prison of Leyla Zana and three other former parliamentarians of Kurdish origin and the first ever broadcast in the Kurdish language took place while I was there. I am concerned, however, that subsequent progress has been slower than hoped and that the optimism that existed in the Kurdish community at that time has not been sustained.

Recent developments include, in March, private regional radio and television channels starting to broadcast in Kurdish, but only for 45 minutes a day. Subtitles are also compulsory, which rules out live programmes and discussions. That is bad. In April, violent clashes with the police ended with 15 dead. In August, there were bomb attacks in tourist areas which killed three Turks, and Kurdish separatists claimed credit. In September, there was a bomb attack in Diyarbakir, allegedly by a Turkish right-wing group, which killed 10 people.

To end on a positive note – it may seem a small point but I think that it is important – as a consequence of earlier drafts of this report the Turkish authorities have taken measures to make sure that books in Kurdish are available in public libraries, which previously had not been the case.

In this report, I have affirmed the value and distinctiveness of the Kurdish language and culture, and the duty of our council, which derives its moral strength from tolerant diversity, to work to give them the freedom to develop. To our Turkish friends, who may feel that they have been overly criticised, I say simply that what the Assembly is asking Turkey to do for its Kurdish minority is in line with what the Assembly has in the past asked other member countries to do for their respective minorities, and it is much less than what countries such as Switzerland, Spain, Norway, Sweden and Finland already do for theirs. I recommend the report to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Baroness Hooper, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – I congratulate the rapporteur on a thorough and thoughtful report. His introduction, and the historical background that he provides, make it a valuable and useful document, as well as a lasting one. I associate myself fully with the remarks that he made about the Secretariat in general but especially about our Committee on Culture, Science and Education.

The rapporteur referred to the fact that the Kurdish diaspora has played a major political role in making known the fate of the Kurds in the various countries of origin and in ensuring that those people and their needs are not forgotten. The Council of Europe and in particular the Parliamentary Assembly, has a role in ensuring that minority groups, minority rights and minority cultures are recognised, and where necessary championed and given the maximum publicity and profile. I am sure that the report and debate will contribute greatly to that, in the best traditions of this Assembly.

As an aside, I remind colleagues of the Finno-Ugric exhibition that took place in the Palais de l’Europe as an example of the way in which we can provide a platform and help to attract attention to the needs of a minority group language. I certainly learned a great deal from that event.

The EDG supports this report and its recommendations. Turkey, as a founder member of the Council of Europe and a potential member of the European Union, inevitably attracts a higher level of attention than Iran, Iraq and Syria, which also have Kurdish communities, but to whom exhortation and encouragement are all that we can offer. Nevertheless, we trust that every opportunity will be taken and every channel of communication used to bring the report’s conclusions and recommendations to the attention of the authorities in those countries.

That said, in welcoming the recent changes in Turkey, which have meant the lifting of restrictions on the expression of the Kurdish language, we hope that the report opens the way to further reforms. In particular, the Turkish Prime Minister’s visit to the predominantly Kurdish south-east, his acknowledgment of a “Kurdish problem”, and his statement that Turkey needs “to address the Kurdish issue under a banner of increasing democratisation” are welcome signs of a new approach. I hope that our Turkish colleagues will take that into consideration in deciding whether to support the report. We all have minorities in our countries, so what the report requests is no more than we would expect from ourselves.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Platvoet, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – Some 27 million Kurds live in the region where Europe meets the Middle East, spread out over four countries in which they have different rights and opportunities, as the rapporteur’s fine report shows. The Unified European Left supports the proposals in the draft resolution. It is a good report and its proposals recognise the cultural rights of the Kurdish people to practise and promote their own culture.

Turkey has a great responsibility, because it is a member of the Council of Europe and committed to the principles of this Organisation. It is disappointing that, although some improvements have been made, Turkish policy towards the Kurds is still repressive. Turkey denies the existence of a national minority within their territory, as the report on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities shows, although some 12 million to 15 million Kurds are living in Turkey.

Turkey also refuses to sign the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Therefore, the institutional unwillingness of the Turkish authorities is clear. Some of the amendments tabled by my Turkish colleagues today also show that unwillingness, and that is sad.

The right of minorities to express their cultural identity is a fundamental human right. Reports have been published by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on the repression, prosecution and condemning of Kurdish expressions of their own identity in Turkish society. That is still going on. Those cases are related to issues raised in our debate, such as the prosecution of the union of teachers that defended the right to give education in mother tongues such as Kurdish.

To deny those rights gives fuel to the flame of resistance in the hearts and minds of the people who are denied. To give those rights can lead to the wish to express political rights and, in the case of the Kurds, the wish for an independent Kurdistan, and that is, of course, what the Turkish authorities fear the most. However, those wishes and political aims are legal in themselves if they are expressed in a political and peaceful way.

In that context, it is important to note that the PKK announced just a few days ago a one-sided ceasefire in order to implement a process for the solving of the Kurdish case. The reaction of the Turkish Prime Minister was, as always, to say, “We do not negotiate with terrorists. They have to hand over their weapons”. That shows that nothing has been learned from the way, for example, the United Kingdom and Ireland dealt and negotiated with the IRA. Simple answers in repeat mode do not contribute to any solution.

Clearly, we support the proposals in the report, but the Group of the Unified European Left also supports any attempt that will lead to a solution that means that the Kurds can also have the right to express their political will in a peaceful way.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Platvoet. I now call Mr de Puig, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr de PUIG (Spain) congratulated the rapporteur on his magnificent report. It was not the first time that the Committee on Culture, Science and Education had examined the situation of the Kurds. The report focused on their culture and language. The political question was another matter which needed to be addressed, in particular the issue of terrorism. Some people had adopted radical positions, but that action should not be allowed to stop Kurds enjoying their cultural and linguistic rights.

That one group of people within a country should enjoy fewer rights than another could not be countenanced. That was especially true with respect to language: it was an individual’s right to speak his or her mother tongue. Where possible, education should be delivered in an individual’s mother tongue. The Council of Europe should adopt a consistent approach towards the cultural and linguistic rights of all Europeans, including Kurds. Some might have misgivings about delivering education in certain languages, but they would lose the battle: sooner or later, people would gain the opportunity to learn in their own language. Plurality was important to the wealth and prosperity of Europe. Council of Europe member states could not fail to recognise the importance of the right of people to speak their mother tongue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr de Puig. The next speaker on the list is Mr Schreiner, but he is not here, so I call Mrs Bilgehan.

Mrs BİLGEHAN (Turkey) thanked Lord Russell-Johnston for his very interesting report. As a Turk, she had paid close attention to the statistical information about the global distribution of the Kurdish people, especially those in Turkey. In Turkey, the issue of the Kurdish language had long been recognised. Government policies had improved the situation, but further progress could be made, for example, through the introduction of Kurdish language television channels. However, Kurds were able to publish books and listen to radio programmes in their language. Unfortunately, few Turkish people sought to learn Kurdish, as families preferred to send their children to English or dancing classes. It should not be forgotten that there were many different Kurdish dialects, some Kurds living in close proximity could not understand each other.

The report implied that Turkey was the only place where Kurds lived and experienced problems, but there were many Kurds throughout Europe. It was interesting to examine the measures that other European countries had taken to protect the cultural heritage and language of the Kurds.

The Turkish Kurds were not an oppressed population. Many had progressed high in society: for example, the current Minister of the Interior was of Kurdish origin. Turks and Kurds had lived together for over 1 000 years. Co-existence was not a problem, except when the terrorist organisation, the PKK, was present. It was that organisation that was a threat to stability in the region.

The report’s criticisms of honour killings were to be welcomed. Tradition could not be an excuse for such crimes. Turkish law had imposed strict sanctions against those who perpetrated honour killings.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Bilgehan. I call Mr Mercan.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for his efforts in addressing the Kurdish problem.

Let me be blunt: I am in favour of cultural rights. I am totally in favour of the individual rights of any group who wishes to exercise them. That is why my government and the opposition party have initiated many improvements in broadcasting, publishing and printing. There is even an initiative to teach the Kurdish language. It is incumbent on a politician, wherever that politician is, to provide opportunities for all citizens – there must be no discrimination – so that they can prepare for the competitive global environment. That is why we are keen to provide people with rights and opportunities.

I draw the Assembly’s attention to the dynamic global environment of 50 or 60 years ago, when millions of people moved to Europe and settled in countries such as the Netherlands, France, Italy, Germany and Austria, to name but a few. Millions of people from different ethnic backgrounds with different nationalities and different languages settled in Europe. We could argue that they are not indigenous people, but they are citizens of our countries. They pay taxes, and their children and grandchildren continue to live here.

We all face the same problem of integration. In most European countries, the provision of education in a child’s mother language is not an issue. Millions of Arabs live in France as French citizens. Should we tell France that they must educate them in Arabic? Should we tell Germany and Holland to educate children in Turkish or Kurdish?

Let me repeat: I am totally in favour of cultural rights, because diversity brings enrichment. The diversity and freedom of a society are always assets. I was born in a Kurdish area and I still have many friends from the region. We have had politicians of Kurdish origin, including, at one time, a president. His cousin is among us right now. When we talk about cultural rights, we must be clear that we do not create divisions, but enrich society and benefit from the differences. I find the opinions of some of my colleagues strange, especially those voiced by Mr Platvoet. Yesterday we discussed minorities. A French colleague said that there are no minorities in France. Similarly, our German colleague narrowly defined the term “minority”.

We will continue to debate this subject regularly. I am glad that we have reached a basis on which we can have a dialogue, and I thank the rapporteur, Lord Russell-Johnston, not only on producing the report but on taking note of our amendments. When we discuss them, the Assembly will see that there is a common understanding on improving the report to better help our Kurdish friends and citizens to integrate and compete in the global arena.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Mercan. I call Mr Coşkunoğlu.

Mr COŞKUNOĞLU (Turkey). – This is an important report. Any effort that encourages a culture to flourish, rather than suppressing it, is important because culture enriches our lives and our civilisation. So this is an important report not only for the Kurds but for all the countries where Kurds live – namely, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and, in fact, many European countries.

The rapporteur could visit only Turkey. I should point out that it was not possible for him to visit any other country in the Middle East to carry out a fact-finding mission. The rapporteur was welcomed in Turkey. It is important to recognise these facts.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Turkey values the cultural diversity of her citizens. It is a well-known fact that Anatolian soil has hosted a wide variety of civilisations throughout history. It is also well known that, when divided along religious or racial lines, these cultures could not manage to live together peacefully, let alone reap the benefits and the enrichment produced by diversity.

It is precisely for this reason that, about 85 years ago, Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, did not offer a racial definition for the new Turkish nation or for the Turk, and it is very important to understand that. The Ottoman Empire was obviously not a nation state. From the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, Ataturk was founding a new nation state called Turkey. People have to consider how to define this new Turkish nation and how to define a Turk. Ataturk rejected – I think very smartly – a racist definition that not only would be meaningless, but could have sown the seed of subsequent racial conflicts in the area. Therefore, he said that, if you claim to be a Turk, you are a Turk. Thus he defined the Turkish citizen.

Ataturk’s definition of the Turkish nation is occasionally misunderstood. The fact that he did not define the Turkish nation along some racial or ethnic line or by using some racial or ethnic criteria does not preclude the recognition of different cultures within the Turkish nation.

Only by avoiding racial or ethnic conflicts can the diversity of cultures become an enriching experience. Indeed, it is my hope that the report will help all concerned to view the diversity of cultures within the Turkish nation as a precious resource that enriches us. That is possible only if cultural diversity is not used to create ethnic and racial divides and conflicts within the Turkish nation or in the region. Again, I hope that the report will serve that purpose.

However, I have a few reservations about the draft resolution, to which we have tabled amendments. I also have a few reservations about the wording of the explanatory memorandum produced by the rapporteur. I should not exaggerate – I have only two reservations, but I will mention them. The first of them is found in paragraph 72 on page 12 of the English version, where the term “civil war” is used. A civil war is one fought between legitimate armies. The Turkish efforts and fight against PKK terrorism should not be entitled a civil war.

The second item about which I have a reservation is that paragraph 73 states that “By their attitude of rejection, the Turkish authorities fuelled the very Kurdish separatism that they contested and which they fought at such a high price for Kurds and Turks” – thus putting the blame firmly on the Turkish authorities. I do not believe that that is fair or correct.

I conclude by emphasising two points. First, the PKK is a terrorist organisation that should not be tolerated if all concerned are to reap the benefits of cultural diversity. Secondly, promoting a division along ethnic or racial lines does not help the peaceful co-existence of different cultures, let alone reap the benefits of cultural diversity. Let us try to make cultural diversity work as a lever for creating a better civilisation, not racial or ethnic conflict. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Coşkunoğlu. I call Mr Proroković.

Mr PROROKOVIĆ (Serbia). –Ladies and gentlemen, I fully agree with the rapporteur that the issue of the position of the Kurds is one of the key issues in the Middle East. Between 25 million and 35 million Kurds lived in the region, mostly spread between four countries. Ninety years ago, some of the major powers – several major countries – committed themselves to finding a solution to the Kurdish problem by using different conventions and agreements.

However, this issue has remained unsolved to date. Exasperation among Kurds has therefore become strong. The lack of resolution has brought about the new extremism in the Middle East and, unfortunately, terrorism. Unravelling the Kurdish problem has therefore become even more difficult to achieve.

Today, the Kurds live in four countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. So without comprehensive acknowledgment of this problem and without an appropriate problem-solving approach being taken to the problem of the whole Middle East, so that it is not just considered as a problem for Turkey alone, the issue of the individual and collective rights of the Kurds cannot be solved.

The Turkish Government of Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has done a lot. The rapporteur said that, for many decades, the Kurds were not recognised by the Turkish authorities. But in the past two years, the situation has changed: there is broadcasting in the Kurdish dialect on Turkish national television and Kurdish language courses are permitted. Books, records and courses in Kurdish are no longer forbidden. That is a very big step, but can the Turkish Government do even more and must it do even more? Of course it can and of course it does, but one has to bear it in mind that this is a long-term process and that these tasks demand patience and a very cautious approach.

It is of the utmost importance that the Kurds receive all the rights guaranteed by the Council of Europe’s documents, but it is equally important to prevent the destabilisation of Turkey as a country, as well as the occurrence of new extremism within Turkey.

To sum up, only a stable and democratic Turkey can guarantee the stability of the region and represent a partner in the talks aimed at finding the solution of the Kurdish problem in general. I will vote for the draft resolution, but I will also vote for some of the amendments that have been tabled because I think that the Assembly must welcome the legal, political and social steps taken by the Turkish Government in respect of the cultural rights of the Kurds in the past two years. Thank you.

(Mr Szabó, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gardetto.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Proroković. I call Mrs İncekara.

Mrs İNCEKARA (Turkey). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I should like to thank our honourable rapporteur, Lord Russell-Johnston, for his efforts to display the current cultural situation of Kurdish communities living in many countries.

As our rapporteur states in his report, the Turkish Government has taken many measures to improve the cultural rights of Turkish citizens who traditionally use different languages and dialects other than Turkish in their daily life.

In August 2002, the Law on the Establishment of and Broadcasting by Radio and Television Corporations was amended to allow broadcasting in such languages and dialects. Following the adoption of the by-law required for the implementation of this amendment, broadcasting in different languages and dialects first began on the state-run TRT radio and television channels in June 2004. Most recently, in March 2006 the Radio and Television Supreme Council, which is responsible for the implementation of the said bylaw, granted permission for several private radio and TV stations to broadcast in the Kirmanchi and Zaza dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.

The amendments to the Law on Foreign Language Education and Teaching and the Learning of Different Languages and Dialects by Turkish Citizens in August 2002 and July 2003 allowed the learning of different languages and dialects. With a view to regulating the implementation of these amendments, a by-law was issued in December 2003 and several private Kurdish language teaching institutions were subsequently opened.

I believe that our rapporteur, Lord Russell-Johnston, deserves appreciation for his efforts to achieve the rather ambitious goal of incorporating into a single report observations on the cultural situation of the Kurds, who are dispersed in many countries, including Turkey. However, I regret to say that I have serious doubts as to whether the final report is an achievement as such, given the biased approach that has afflicted the evolution of the report from the outset.

It is understandable that the report deals with Kurds living in Turkey, as they are said to comprise a significant portion of the Kurdish population in the world – but that is unfortunately based only on estimates. However, in the report we do not see much more than observations on the cultural situation of Kurds living in Turkey. Is it possible to assume that we can reach conclusions regarding the cultural situation of all Kurds living in numerous countries based on the observations concerning only one country? Furthermore, could the absence of a reference to the problems of the Kurdish diaspora in Europe be considered a deficiency of the report? They may not be encountering many problems in expressing their cultural identity, but does that necessarily mean that this liberty has been achieved at no cost? Can we simply ignore the xenophobic and racist threats, discrimination and intolerance as well as the emerging Islamophobia to which they are often exposed, along with other migrant communities?

The draft resolution contains recommendations that are addressed only to Turkey because it is the only Council of Europe member among the states referred to in the report. Does this mean that the cultural situation of all the Kurds would improve if we assumed that the recommendations were to be fulfilled by only one country? Are we expecting a spill-over effect which will improve the cultural situation of Kurds in other countries as well? I am pretty sure that if we can receive satisfactory answers to these questions, we will have not only a more comprehensive report, but an unbiased and more convincing one as well.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Tekelioğlu.

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – As a member of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, I have been involved in the preparation of the report. It has been a long and difficult process. Our rapporteur, Lord Russell-Johnston, and his secretary, Mr Ary, have put an enormous amount of effort into the report. They travelled to Turkey, met many high-level personalities, listened to NGOs and took note of different perspectives. We discussed this issue in detail in many committee meetings. Hearings were held, and we listened to many experts and representatives of different groups from various backgrounds.

As I have said, this was not an easy task. The main source of the difficulties we faced was the nature of the issue itself. It is a controversial issue in which emotions are heavily involved. It is an issue that is wide open to the influence of personal experience, and one that can be seen and understood differently depending on one’s point of view. It is only natural that people would see and feel things differently depending on whether they were looking at this issue from Turkey, Britain or northern Iraq.

If we look at the issue from Turkey, we see the tireless efforts of that country to improve the standards of its people in every field while fighting against one of the most bloody terrorist campaigns that the world has ever seen. We see huge bold steps being taken in the right direction with the aim of strengthening universal values, and a sincere will to ensure that each and every one of its citizens enjoys fully and equally all the rights and freedoms in order to build a peaceful and stable future. I am pleased to say that some of these developments have been adequately reflected in the report. However, some points are not based on factual information and deserve criticism.

The improvement of the cultural situation of all Turkish citizens from all ethnic backgrounds, including the Kurds, is directly related to the stability in Turkey as well as in the region at large. When there is stability and peace, the situation of ethnic groups is improved automatically. We therefore expect all of you to condemn PKK terror – which kills innocent people in my country and continues to contribute to the deterioration of the situation in south-eastern Turkey and northern Iraq – and to take the necessary measures in your national parliaments.

As a last word, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Lord Russell-Johnston, and his secretary, Mr João Ary, once again. We may not agree on everything when dealing with issues of such difficulty. However, the important thing is that we do our very best and with good will to ensure that all citizens of Europe enjoy the same rights and freedoms without any restriction or discrimination.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Lord Russell-Johnston, the rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – Mr President, colleagues, I am very happy with the way in which members have received my report and I thank all those who have participated. I do not claim that the report makes any sweeping or radical proposals for change, although that is an approach that one could have adopted. Rather, I have attempted to provide – in the words of Mr Mercan – a basis for conversation. Some might say that, compared with some things in the past, that in itself is quite radical. However, I believe that effective and lasting change comes only when we establish dialogue and openness, and it is certainly my hope that this report will make a contribution towards achieving that.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I call the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education. You have two minutes.

Mr LEGENDRE (France) said that the Committee on Culture, Science and Education was proud of the report. It was a difficult subject and even definition of the problem was difficult. He noted that while the English text of the report described the Kurds as “stateless”, the French version had “apatrides”: this was not the same.

The Turkish delegation had expressed considerable concern that the committee would operate on the basis of certain assumptions. The committee had tried to avoid assuming anything and it was clear that Turkey was not the only member state addressed on the issues in the report. It was noteworthy that, although the report covered all states of the region in which significant Kurdish populations were present, Turkey had been the only country to receive the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education has presented a draft resolution, to which seven amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in numerical order.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Murat Mercan, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Halide İncekara, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8, add the following sentence:

"The new Turkish Penal Code eliminates any mitigating factor for "honour killings" and defines them as premeditated homicide."

I call Mr Mercan to support the amendment.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – We propose that under the new penal code honour killings should be dealt with in the same way as other killings. I believe that we have an agreement with Lord Russell-Johnston.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – The committee accepted the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Murat Mercan, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Halide İncekara, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9, add the following sentence:

"The Assembly welcomes the legal, political and social steps taken by the Turkish Government, which it is hoped will pave the way for a sustainable change in the right direction."

I call Mr Mercan to support the amendment.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – In the amendment, we express appreciation of the legal, political and social steps taken by the Turkish Government vis-à-vis the issue that we are discussing. I think that we have an agreement with the committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France)(Translation). –The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Murat Mercan, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Halide İncekara, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12, insert the following paragraph:

"The improvement of the cultural situation of Kurds is directly related to the political stability in the region. When there is stability and peace, the cultural situation of ethnic groups is improved almost automatically. Therefore, the Assembly condemns the PKK – an organization recognised as terrorist by the European Union and most of the Council of Europe member states – which continues to contribute to the deterioration of the political situation in the south-eastern part of Turkey and Northern Iraq."

Before I call Mr Mercan to move his amendment, I must inform the Assembly that I have had notice that Mr Mercan wishes to move an oral sub-amendment to it. Before we can deal with the sub-amendment, I must call Mr Mercan to move Amendment No. 3. He has one minute.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – The individual cultural rights of any group depend heavily on security and stability in the areas concerned. We are saying that if cultural rights are to improve for Kurdish citizens in Turkey, the region must be very stable. That is why, in the first part of the amendment, we call for stability. In the second part, we condemn the terrorist organisation, the PKK, for creating so much instability and reacting so vigorously and violently.

THE PRESIDENT. – We shall deal with the sub-amendment. It reads as follows: “In the text of Amendment No. 3, leave out from ‘when there is stability’ to the end and insert ‘Peace and stability are necessary for the improvement of the cultural situation of ethnic groups.’”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6, and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object. Is there any opposition to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Mercan to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I thank Lord Russell-Johnston for improving the text, and for leaving out all the political matters. Following consultation with him, we decided to table the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) said that the committee was in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 3, as amended?

I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – If the resolution is to deal with the cultural situation of the Kurds, I do not think it decent, wise or constructive to insert an entirely political paragraph. I therefore advise the Assembly not to adopt the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Mercan, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Halide İncekara, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 13 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly encourages Turkey, as a Council of Europe member state, to take necessary measures with a view to further improving the cultural situation of Kurds in Turkey.”

Before I call Mr Mercan to move his amendment, I must inform the Assembly that I have had notice that Mr Mercan wishes to move an oral sub-amendment to this amendment.

Before we can deal with the sub-amendment, I must call Mr Mercan to move Amendment No. 4. Mr Mercan, you have one minute.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – Together with my dear colleague, Lord Russell-Johnston, I wish to move Amendment No. 4, which, with the sub-amendment, will improve the cultural situation of the Kurdish citizens in Turkey.

THE PRESIDENT. – We shall now deal with the sub-amendment. First, I shall read the text of the sub-amendment to the Assembly. It is as follows: “In the text of Amendment No. 4, after ‘member state’, to insert the words ‘to address the “Kurdish issue” in a comprehensive manner and’.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6, and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object. Is there any opposition to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Mercan to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – At the risk of repeating myself, the oral sub-amendment is a result of co-operation between Lord Russell-Johnston and me.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 4, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4, as amended, is adopted.

I call Mr Mercan to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – As I said in my opening remarks, I am totally against the phrase that encourages education in the mother tongue. However, following consultation with Lord Russell-Johnston, I am willing to withdraw the amendment if he proposes his oral amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – As you have just heard, Mr Mercan has withdrawn Amendment No. 5. I have received an oral amendment from Lord Russell-Johnston, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, leave out sub-paragraph 14.2 and insert the following new sub-paragraph: ‘considering the possibility of education in the mother tongue in addition to the official language.’”

In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6 since it is intended to lead to conciliation. Is there any opposition to the oral amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Lord Russell-Johnston to support the oral amendment.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – In accepting the oral amendment, you used the word “conciliation”, which is one of the criteria for acceptance. The oral amendment represents conciliation between the mover of Amendment No. 5 and me. It is a paving amendment. One accepts that it is not possible to ensure education in the mother tongue overnight, but one should consider the possibility actively and that is the point of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – The committee gives its blessing to conciliation.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

I call Mr Mercan to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – As with the previous amendment, I am willing to withdraw Amendment No. 6 if Lord Russell-Johnston moves his oral amendment which contains better wording.

THE PRESIDENT. – As you have just heard, Mr Mercan has withdrawn Amendment No. 6. I have received an oral amendment from Lord Russell-Johnston, which reads as follows:“in the draft resolution, leave out sub-paragraph 14.6 and insert the following new sub-paragraph: ‘re-examining the administrative procedures faced by Kurds in their cultural activities.’”

In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6 since it is intended to lead to conciliation. Is there any opposition to the oral amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Lord Russell-Johnston to support the oral amendment.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – The new wording accepted by Mr Mercan commits the Turkish Government to re-examining the administrative procedures, and that is satisfactory to me.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – The committee approves the spirit of dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Murat Mercan, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Halide İncekara, Mr Abdülkadir Ateş, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu and Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 14.7.

I call Mr Mercan to support Amendment No. 7

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – We want to delete paragraph 14.7 because in the official census we do not want any discrimination as regards multi-ethnic or religious schools. If you open this possibility, it may be against the European Convention on Human Rights, as the rapporteur agreed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LEGENDRE (France) (Translation). – The committee is in favour, obviously.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11006, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11006, as amended, is adopted, with 61 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

6. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday.

Are there any objections?

That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 6.40 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Changes in the membership of committees

3.       Written declaration

4.       The OECD and the world economy

      Presentation by Mr Cosidó of the report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (Doc. 11012)

      Contribution from Mrs Hurskainen on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (Doc. 11055)

      Contribution by Mr Salles on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population

      Contribution by Baroness Hooper on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 11054)

      Contribution by Mr Dupraz on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

      Statement by Mr Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD

      Speakers

      Mr Högmark (Sweden)

      Mrs Veenendaal (Netherlands)

      Mr Walter (United Kingdom)

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mrs Barnett (Germany)

      Mr Geghamyan (Armenia)

      Mr Murata (Observer from Japan)

      Mrs Papadopoulos (Cyprus)

      Mr Grignon (France)

      Mr Hunault (France)

      Mr Ho-Sung (Observer from Korea)

      Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

      Mr Özal (Turkey)

      Mrs Milne (Observer from Canada)

      Mr Tilson (Observer from Canada)

      Mrs Papadimitriou (Greece)

      Replies

      Mr Gurría (Secretary General of the OECD)

      Mr Cosidó (Spain)

      Mrs Papadimitriou (Greece)

      Draft resolution adopted unanimously.

5.       The cultural situation of the Kurds

       Presentation by Lord Russell-Johnston of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 11006)

      Speakers

      Baroness Hooper (United Kingdom)

      Mr Platvoet (Netherlands)

      Mr de Puig (Spain)

      Mrs Bilgehan (Turkey)

      Mr Mercan (Turkey)

      Mr Coşkunoğlu (Turkey)

      Mr Proroković (Serbia)

      Mrs İncekara (Turkey)

      Mr Tekelıoğlu (Turkey)

      Mr Legendre (France)

      Replies

      Lord Russell-Johnston (United Kingdom)

      Mr Legendre (France)

      Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 as amended, 4 as amended, 7 and two oral amendments adopted.

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

6.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting