contents 
page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.AACR31 |
AS (2006) CR 31 |
Provisional edition |
2006 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Fourth part)
REPORT
Thirty-first sitting
Friday 6 October 2006 at 10 a.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 Kosachev, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.
THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Sitting have been distributed.
Are these minutes agreed to?
The minutes are agreed to.
2. Changes in the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT. – Our first business today is to consider changes proposed by the Italian delegation in the membership of committees, set out in document Commissions (2006) 6 Addendum 6, and the changes proposed to the composition of the Monitoring Committee set out in document Commissions (2006) 6 Addendum 7.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
They are agreed to.
3. The need to reconcile work and family life
THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this morning is the debate on “The need to reconcile work and family life”, presented by Mrs Papadopoulos on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Document 11019.
The list of speakers closed at 5.30 p.m. yesterday. Seven names are on the list.
I call Mrs Papadopoulos, the rapporteur.
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – It gives me great pleasure to present my report.
We live in a complex, interdependent and demanding world. The existing work culture attaches too much emphasis to long working hours, and takes no account of family obligations. Working men and women find it hard to square the circle and reconcile their family and working lives. Reconciling the two is particularly difficult for women, who still carry most of the responsibility of bringing up children, running a home and looking after elderly dependants. Existing inequalities in the labour market, wage discrepancies and the “glass ceiling” phenomenon provide additional obstacles. The situation deteriorates when childminding facilities or care centres for the elderly are inadequate or expensive, and becomes even worse for single parents. It is obvious that the need for reconciliation is no longer just a women’s issue; it affects society, and is very important for both sexes.
The report outlines today’s realities, obstacles and challenges for working men and women. It highlights the need to take action to reconcile work and family life, thus ensuring equal opportunities, rights and responsibilities, economic independence and personal fulfilment for both sexes. It highlights good practices, promoting reconciliation in Council of Europe member states. Comparative tables present a valuable variety of measures taken throughout Europe, mostly collected from replies to our questionnaire received from the majority of Council of Europe member states. They demonstrate substantial differences among various countries.
In the report, we reached several valuable conclusions. The absence of measures aimed at reconciliation has negative consequences for birth rates, female employment rates, and hence national economies. Women with family responsibilities often face a dilemma: should they stop working, or work part-time? Should they not have any children, or delay having them? There is clear evidence that the percentage of active women working part-time increases with the number of children in the family. That partly explains why the employment rate for women is generally lower than for men, and why it decreases as the number of children increases.
A good example demonstrating the direct correlation of employment rates with sufficient infrastructure is provided by the Nordic countries. Those countries have the highest female employment rates and the highest birth rates in Europe, obviously because they have good childcare facilities.
Measures to reconcile work and family life affect female employment rates and hence economic growth. They provide answers to the serious problems of low birth rates and ageing populations in Europe. They serve as a vehicle to achieve the Lisbon strategy’s targets, which aim for a 60% employment rate for women by 2010 and improved childminding facilities for at least 33% of children under the age of 3 and for at least 90% of children from the age of 3 to compulsory schooling. It should be stressed that only 10 European countries up to now have managed to have female employment rates exceeding 60%. Most of the rest have females employment rates well below that figure, and five have rates even lower than 35%.
It is encouraging to note that many Council of Europe member countries have carried out relevant research to identify the main obstacles to reconciling work and family life. That research reveals inadequate childminding facilities in most European countries, grey areas in some national legislation, variable attitudes to parental, maternity or paternity leave, serious differences in work duration, remuneration, conditions, career opportunities and benefits to the sexes, and different work culture mentalities.
Our research has also revealed that an array of measures, good practice and interesting projects are being implemented in several European countries, with the aim of improving work culture, removing psychological and structural barriers and promoting an “in-house culture” by setting up flexible childminding and support facilities tailored to the needs of working parents, in line with the Lisbon strategy. I do not have time to mention all such projects, but they include, for example, the Concilia plan in Spain, the on-the-spot nurseries in France, fathers’ month in Norway, paid parental leave in Iceland and gender-linked segregation projects in Denmark. Award schemes and consciousness-raising campaigns are described in full detail in the report, together with other good practices and measures.
Promoting reconciliation is definitely a win-win process for all, including working parents, social partners and the national economy. It promotes gender equality; enables women and men with family responsibilities to achieve economic independence and professional and personal fulfilment; further encourages participation of women and men in work and public life; and it can prove to be a decisive factor in accelerating economic progress and prosperity.
What is needed is the political determination of all Council of Europe member states to devise and use innovative, effective measures and incentives to promote a balance in work and family life. Such balance is a vital prerequisite for promoting equal opportunities in the labour market. It also contributes to economic progress.
The report’s recommendations provide a good basis for reconciliation policies and strategies to be implemented by member states. Practical action, specific policies and incentives are also needed. It is also necessary to promote the full implementation of Recommendation No. R(96)5 of the Council of Europe and to support facilities tailored to the needs of working parents.
I believe that this report will make its own valuable contribution towards promoting a better work/family balance, gender equality and equal opportunities for both sexes in all paths of life. I hope that it will also serve as a benchmark for future comparative studies of the progress made.
I thank the President and the members of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. I also thank most warmly the committee’s secretariat for their most valuable assistance and co-operation in the preparation of this report. I call on everyone here today – unfortunately, it is Friday and not many members are here – to vote in favour of the report.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. In the debate, I call Mrs Bargholtz, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mrs BARGHOLTZ (Sweden). – How to combine work and family life successfully is a growing concern for more and more people in Europe today. This is, as the rapporteur rightly points out, a problem mainly affecting women. In Sweden, we sometimes call such women “sandwich women”. They are like sandwich fillings, squeezed from both sides, by their husbands, children and sometimes grandchildren and elderly parents and in-laws, and they have jobs, too. Many of them get sick because they have too much work and too many responsibilities. Why do women burden themselves so much? Is it genetic or gender-based? Some people claim that it is.
The rapporteur has several good and sensible ideas about how work and family life could be better reconciled. Some of them are already in action in European countries to a greater or lesser extent. One problem, however, remains. In all European countries that I know of, women’s wages are still lower than those of men for the same kind of work. Wage discrimination still exists. The reason for that is much debated. Some claim that it is because women take on the main responsibility for their families so they cannot spend as much time in the workplace as men. Women are also expected to take more, or even all, of the parental leave, and they often do so. That is a problem.
The question of parental leave is of vital importance to the issue of equality between women and men. The rapporteur rightly said that parental leave is especially relevant to making it easier for women and men to reconcile work and family life, but parental leave must not be taken only by women. Children also need close and early contact with their fathers. In my country, we are having a debate about an extended quota system for parental leave. Fathers are supposed to take at least two months’ parental leave out of a total amount of thirteen months. Many people think that that is not enough. They suggest that the parents should divide the parental leave equally between them or that Sweden should copy Iceland’s model, where each parent takes a third of the leave and they can decide themselves how to use the remaining third. Personally, I think that that is an attractive idea.
I realise that it is not for the rapporteur to deal with that issue in close detail in a report examining work and family life. However, I wish to make it clear that good recommendations on parental leave will not automatically lead to improvements in equal opportunities for women and men in the labour market and in the family.
On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I thank the rapporteur for her excellent and comprehensive report. I sincerely hope that in the future there will be no need for such reports because the problems it addresses will soon be solved. But I have my doubts about that.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Bargholtz. I call Ms Woldseth, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway). – Let me first thank the rapporteur for the report. It raises several interesting perspectives, even though I do not agree with its conclusions. The reason for that is that the recommendations are in conflict with my own experience, beliefs and values. Of course I agree that women should have the same wages as men for doing the same kind of work, but it bothers me that the Council of Europe should encourage member states to achieve a 60% employment rate for women in 2010.
It bothers me also that the report recommends that at least 33% of children under the age of 3, and 90% of children from the age of 3 to the age when they start school should be looked after by people other than their parents. What signals does that give to parents who choose to stay home to care for and to educate their own small children? Do not parents do a good job? Do the public or anyone else know better than you how to take care of your own children? Is the only acceptable thing and the only thing that gives value to women working and having a career?
I warn all of us against going down that road. This is at the core of family policy in every country. It is a matter of family values. It is also about being a bit modest. I find it hard to tell others what is best, and how parents should raise their children. What is right in one country may be wrong in another, and what is right for one woman and one family is not necessarily right for another woman and another family. We must ensure that no women or families are pushed into doing something that they do not believe is right. We seem to have forgotten that this has something to do with the culture.
Of course I am aware that not every woman works because she has a career to pursue. A lot of women throughout the world have to work to make a living, and of course we must ensure that options are available so that their children can be properly looked after. I stress that I do not mean that all children should stay at home but we need to find a balance and to accept that it is every individual’s right to decide what is best for them and their children.
For years, Norway has followed a policy of having women in the work force and in professional careers. That has made women who work at home feel embarrassed about it. They almost feel inferior and do not want always want to admit to “only” looking after their family. On the other hand, we have parents who have placed their children in day care from a very young age and who now complain about the so-called time-trap, which gives them too little time with their children.
There should be no doubt that small children should spend most of their time with their parents. It worries me that not everyone thinks that way. According to my set of values, it is more important to give children a happy and safe childhood and a good start in life, rather than to make a career for one’s self.
In addition, there is the issue of cost. I do not think that the Council of Europe should tell private or public employers in member states what to do. That must be left up to the member states themselves to figure out. That is why we want to vote against the report. Our children are the future, so let us treat them well. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Ms Woldseth. I call Mr Grignon, who will speak on behalf of the European People’s Party.
Mr GRIGNON (France) said that a rounded package of measures was essential to address the three key elements of an individual’s life: family needs, professional needs and individual needs. In France there had been significant changes in family structures. Public policy had to make it easier for childminding facilities to prosper. Policy needed to provide freedom for parents and to recognise the importance of the family. Staff working with small children should be well trained. In France, more and more childminding facilities were being built and measures were also being taken to provide other help to mothers. Women often struggled to find employment after having children and measures should be taken to address this issue. He supported the report and stressed the importance of developing policies which could tackle family, professional and personal needs in combination.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Grignon. I call Mr Meyer.
Mr MEYER (France) argued that the difficulties inherent in reconciling work and family life adversely affected women. Women also faced difficulties in getting employers to recognise their family commitments. Measures also had to be taken which were aimed at men. It was also important to recognise the economic dimension of this issue. The ageing of the European population made it even more important than ever that women were able to go out to work. Achieving a work-life balance would also assist with increasing the birth rate. In France the birth rate was high, but that was not the case in all countries. The provision of affordable childcare was key. Promoting best practice in employers was also vital. It was not necessarily a matter of new laws being required; rather, attitudes and practices needed to be changed. Flexible working hours were important, as was the development of more part-time and homeworking jobs. Only by changing people’s attitudes would the work-life balance become a reality.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Meyer. I call Mr Dupraz.
Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) believed that the work-life balance was a great idea, but was very difficult to achieve in practice. In contemporary society, reconciling work and family life was essential. If women did not go out to work when their children finally left home, they often felt alone and overwhelmed. Women found it difficult to return to work and often had to re-train. A second wage earner was often required these days. Indeed, for many that was not a choice but a necessity. He agreed with the thrust of the draft recommendation, which was modest and not over-reaching.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Dupraz. I call Mr Schneider.
Mr SCHNEIDER (France) noted that following the Second World War, the number of women working had constantly increased. States had to take steps to help people achieve a work-life balance. Many effective measures had been taken in France over recent years, including paternity and maternity leave, childcare provision and fiscal incentives. Wage equality was also very important. Expressing his support for the report, he underscored the importance of raising awareness among employers and changing people’s thinking.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. I call Mrs Smirnova, who is the last speaker on the list.
Mrs SMIRNOVA (Russian Federation) said that the issue under discussion was topical. Many regulations relating to equal opportunities and equal pay had been passed, but unfortunately the situation had not changed. In Russia, given equal circumstances, employers would prefer to hire men rather than women. It was particularly difficult for pregnant women and mothers to gain equal employment opportunities. Yet across Europe there was a demographic crisis and the birth rate was falling. The problems created by an ageing population needed to be addressed.
She agreed with Ms Woldseth that, if possible, a child should be cared for within the family, but that was not always possible, particularly in lower-income families. Women who did not work but brought up children should be given more child benefit, while those who went to work should have access to childcare. One-parent families experienced particular difficulties: single mothers often had no choice on whether to work or stay at home.
Research suggested that women were paid 30% less than men. Men should be allowed to play a role in family life: for example, they should have the right to leave work and look after their children. Women should have the right to work and to bring up a family. Flourishing families would be the result. She supported the report and urged member states to ensure that national legislation protected the rights of both men and women.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. That concludes the list of speakers.
I call Mrs Papadopoulos, the rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – Mr President, I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and I must say that a good proportion of those who participated in this debate were men, which proves that this is not just a women’s issue: it concerns men as well.
I should like to reply to some of the various speakers. To Mrs Bergholtz, I should like to say, yes, we hope that the problems raised in this report will be tackled in the best possible way, so that there will be no need to hold a similar debate in the future. But of course, I doubt whether all the recommendations will be implemented by all countries, because of the cost involved in doing so. Such implementation also varies according to the economic situation in each country. Of course, as was highlighted by the second speaker, Ms Woldseth, that issue is very important. However, with the political will to produce an infrastructure necessary to support working men and women, a way can be found to face these problems.
I have two more answers for Ms Woldseth. The country that she comes from – Norway – has a high female employment rate because it has an excellent social infrastructure. It has a lot of childcare centres, as well as centres for the elderly. That is not the case in most other European countries, as comes out in the report. So I understand that perhaps Norwegian women do not face so many obstacles when they decide to combine both family and working lives.
This report is about working women who also have family responsibilities. At the same time, they want to be highly professional, as well as being good mothers and good wives to their husbands. We certainly want a balance. We want both men and women to walk along, hand in hand, throughout their lives, but women should not suffer from all the obstacles and the barriers that they face – so reconciliation is essential.
I should also like to say that men and women must, indeed, find a balance, and reconciliation is also a precondition for women participating in political and public life. We see from the report that, if women want to participate but do not have the facilities to leave their children during the working day, as the number of children in the family increases the number of women stopping work or not having any children or staying at home increases. So do we want women to stay at home? Let us not forget that women account for 52% of each country’s human resources. If these women do not go into the labour market, the economies of those countries will have a problem.
A final word: we have collected a lot of very important information. Unfortunately, I could not say more about what France has done. I believe that France has done a lot in terms of reconciliation, and the same has happened in the Scandinavian countries. Even though my country – Cyprus – is small it has carried out research into this issue. Indeed, we have followed the Lisbon strategy, which is to be followed by all 25 countries of the European Union, and a target that has been set.
The aim is to achieve 60% participation by women and to have sufficient care centres for the elderly and children by 2010. Today, only 10 countries have succeeded in exceeding the first target and we are far from achieving the second one. So I want to stress the fact that, indeed, this report makes very wise recommendations. We support those recommendations, and we in the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and in the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men are united. We hope that this report provides a sound basis for our countries to think about this issue and to tackle these problems. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men wish to speak? I call Mrs Cliveti.
Mrs CLIVETI (Romania) said that modern societies needed to encourage women to work because female labour contributed to the development of society. Many European countries had ageing populations, and women were held accountable for low birth rates. However, many young women believed that professional training was more important than being a mother. It was difficult for women to have a family and a professional life, but it was their right to have both if they wished. The report, which suggested ways to strike a balance between work and family life, was to be welcomed.
THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.
The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has presented a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11019. I remind you that a two-thirds majority is required.
The draft recommendation in Document 11019 is adopted with 48 votes in favour, 4 against and 3 abstentions.
THE PRESIDENT. – At its meeting this morning, the Bureau proposed a number of references to committees. Details of the references can be found in a document which is available in the document centre.
These references are subject to ratification by the Assembly under Rule 24.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Does the Assembly agree these references?
The references are agreed to.
(Mr Holovaty, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kosachev.)
5. Europe’s interest in the continued economic development of Russia
THE PRESIDENT. – The second item of business this morning is the debate on “Europe’s interest in the continued economic development of Russia”, presented by Mr Sasi on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Document 11026, with an opinion presented by Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11063.
The list of speakers closed yesterday at 5.30 p.m. Nine names are on the list and eight amendments and three sub-amendments have been tabled.
I call Mr Sasi, the rapporteur. He has eight minutes.
Mr SASI (Finland). – Thank you, Mr President. I should like to thank the secretariat of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development for the active and good work that they have put into preparing this extensive report. I should also like to thank the Russian delegation, who invited the committee not only to Moscow but to Irkutsk to see the economic conditions in Russia. It was a delightful trip.
The Russian economy has huge potential to grow because it has immense resources that are not being fully utilised. That growth will bring benefits and higher living standards to Russians. We are all involved in Russia’s economic growth. European countries are Russia’s main trading partners, and growth in Russia therefore increases trade and growth in the whole of Europe. To take the example of my own country, Finland, a large proportion of our trade is carried out with Russia. Therefore, we all have a common interest in the Russian economy.
The Russian economy has been growing since the August 1998 devaluation. The economy has been stabilised and important market reforms have been made. The reform programme was instituted in 2000 and a great deal of good work has been done under the leadership of President Putin and his economic secretary, Mr Gref. Real wages have been growing since then, and it is possible that Russia will achieve her goal to double her gross domestic product between 2003 and 2010. That is a huge goal, but it is possible to achieve it.
High oil prices give the Russian economy a good surplus. There is no reason to slow down the reform policies, however, because the Russian economy still requires a great deal of reform. People often feel that, when things are going well, no reforms are needed. However, Russia still requires many structural reforms. It has not yet achieved its goal and there is still a long way to go. High oil prices should not therefore be used to paint too optimistic picture of the Russian economy. In addition, diversification of growth is lacking and there are big income gaps in the country. In some areas, the economy has developed well, but in other, poorer areas, it has not.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have given good economic advice to Russia, which has been taken into consideration by the Russian Ministry of Economic Development. I am confident that the advice from the Council of Europe – the pan-European view – will also be very beneficial when Russia is planning her economic policies. I hope that our report will be carefully studied by the Russian authorities, and that the delegation to the Council of Europe will help the work to progress in Moscow and in the Duma.
If we look at the Russian economy from our point of view, we notice that foreign direct investment in Russia is less than it should be given the country’s size and potential. The Russian Foreign Investment Advisory Council has identified as key obstacles corruption, administrative hurdles and the selective interpretation and application of laws. From our point of view, a number of steps should be taken to improve the investment climate in Russia. Russia should clarify the role of the state in the economy, especially in the so-called strategic sectors. What is the role of the state, and what can private companies do? The rules must be clear, and Yukos and the cases in Sakhalin should encourage Russia to bring that about.
Secondly, Russia must effectively protect private ownership so that investment is protected, including intellectual property rights, which are often covered by foreign investment. It must also strengthen the rule of law and fight effectively against corruption, because corruption is the worst barrier for foreign investors in the country.
Russia must improve customs administration and reduce criminality. When people want to cross the border they often have to wait for a very long time, and if they want to speed up the process they have to pay small bribes. That cannot be the way to handle things in a modern society. Administrative and judicial reforms must also be accelerated, to simplify the administrative burden and ensure the more effective enforcement of existing laws throughout the country.
Russia must also reduce and simplify licensing. The requirement for many licences provides the potential for corruption. That is why licences, when they are required, must be as simple and transparent as possible. It is also important that everyone be treated equally – small business and big businesses, and domestic and foreign businesses. Then trust can be created.
I shall now raise a few other brief points. The Russian population is diminishing, which poses a threat to the positive mood in the economy. President Putin has launched a programme for a stronger family policy, and to prolong human life, especially for Russian men. That should be strongly advocated by this Assembly. It is important that resources are used to arrest the demographic decline. In addition, Russia should consider whether it should try to attract foreign labour, and ease labour permit policies.
As for diversification, trade and transport are growing rapidly. Many tax revenues now come from remote areas with large national resources, so investments must be made in the infrastructure of the whole country, not just in the centre.
Energy policy is one of the key questions in relations with Russia today. It is important that we can feel that Russia is a reliable partner, so it is important for that country to guarantee energy supplies on a purely commercial basis, with no other considerations. Energy supply is not politics; it is straightforward commerce. Russia must also guarantee sufficient resources for the supply demanded, and so must start reducing spills of oil and gas, and use energy more effectively itself. Russia has announced that it will generate more nuclear power, and that too will guarantee sufficient supply. In addition, Russia needs modern western technologies, so energy co-operation is very important, and will allow more energy resources to be exploited. A continuing energy dialogue between Russia and European countries is important.
What can we deliver? When conditions are right for investment, we can encourage our companies to go into Russia. We must also work to get Russia into all the global organisations, and give full support to its membership of the World Trade Organization, which will soon happen.
We can also assist Russia to build better justice systems and administration. We can also share our technologies and encourage our universities to co-operate and exchange scientists and students.
Mr President, I hope that the report will be useful for Russia. It is our aim to be positive and help Russia to achieve higher economic growth.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Sasi. I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to give the opinion of the committee.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the report was commendable. It emphasised the importance of stable legal structures for investors. The Russian Federation was a major player in global trade and investment. Stability, the rule of law and levels of corruption all influenced investment decisions. There must be respect for the rule of law and for banking regulations. There must be confidence that the law would not be subject to sudden changes and amendments. The Council of Europe member states, including the Russian Federation, had signed up to the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which included provisions covering the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. In the debate I call Mr Korobeynikov, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that the report’s analysis of problems and opportunities in the Russian Federation was good, but other aspects of the report could be improved. More intense development in the Russian Federation could be achieved through wide-spread concessions. Concession-based business would strengthen the stability of the Russian Federation and of the continent. Members of the Assembly should pay more attention to spreading awareness of that aspect than to defending Yukos executives, who were guilty of non-payment of taxes.
The Russian Federation provided other countries with scientists, although selling state secrets was a crime. There was room for further foreign direct investment and international co-operation, but new principles going beyond World Trade Organization standards were necessary. The Russian Federation had made a contribution towards solving global poverty. In many countries the standard of living was lower than it had been fifty years ago, and rich countries should give poor countries the means to progress. Poverty was the greatest threat to the world. The Assembly underestimated the importance of economic factors, as the rule of law, democracy and human rights could not be guaranteed without economic success.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that the implicit message in the report was that wise stewardship of Russian resources would be to the benefit of both Russian and European society. In order to realise the economic potential of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens must be enabled to benefit from Russian resources. In Norway, for example, municipal government had the right to benefit from an area’s natural resources. Citizens had to feel that they, and not only a small élite, benefited from natural assets. It was necessary to redistribute wealth because, although a few people were wealthy, most were not. Redistribution would lift the living standards of all. Norway was exemplary in that respect, as its oil wealth had been invested in infrastructure, which was of benefit to all. In a few years time, every Norwegian child over the age of 3 would have access to a school place. Russian society needed to find a new identity, which would resolve the anxieties of many about Russian society. Its current identity crisis explained the country’s aggression towards the outside world.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Dupraz, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that the Russian Federation was the largest and most populous country among Council of Europe members. It had been attempting to find economic stability since the 1990s after a difficult transition from being a command economy. The benefits of economic success should be redistributed in the interests of the European continent and the world. The Russian Federation now held the presidency of the G8 leading industrialised nations, which provided an opportunity to show commitment to economic reform. He supported the report and the draft resolution. Member states must support the Russian Federation to assist it in joining the World Trade Organization. The fundamental values of the Council of Europe were important for development. The Russian Federation must consolidate the work which had been done to date.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Sudarenkov.
Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that the rapporteur had demonstrated a deep understanding of the Russian economy, development and growth. He supported the report, but with two exceptions. First, the draft resolution referred to the human and economic resources of the Russian Federation. The technical and scientific potential of the Russian Federation should also be recognised. Secondly, integration with Europe should not be limited to a common economic area, but should also include a European landscape area. The Russian Federation possessed a unique natural heritage, but untouched landscapes were disappearing. It was important that economic development was achieved in a manner that did not harm the landscape. Ecologically sensitive areas had to be respected. There was currently a problem in Russia, with pipelines damaging rivers. It was essential to consider the natural environment when developing economic policy.
The report should have contained more on agriculture. Moreover, the context of the report was sometimes too politicised. All things considered, however, he supported it.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Sudarenkov. I call Mr Ivanji.
Mr IVANJI (Serbia). – There is no need to discuss and explain in detail how important and significant Russia’s economic development is for the remaining part of the continent. Among other things, the matter was covered in this report.
We all witnessed the events taking place in the Russian economy up to 1998. Those events had major consequences. I believe that it is necessary to report that in the past eight years the situation has changed for the better. It should be reiterated that the Russian Federation has done a great deal in the past eight years. Numerous statistical data confirm those statements. According to data collected in May, in the first half of the year the GDP rate was 6.2%. Gold reserves in the Russian Central Bank amounted to $277 billion. The year 2006 is the first year in which the inflow of foreign capital was larger than the outflow of foreign capital.
Russia needs to be supported and assisted in the following endeavours: the normalisation of conditions in the market, the fight against corruption and the implementation of administrative reform. Russia can be assisted in her efforts to solve her infrastructural, ecological and transportation problems only through partnership. As a result, the economy could start to show even better results.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Ivanji. I call Ms Vėsaitė.
Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – I congratulate the rapporteur on his comprehensive and informative report. Russia is a major economic player in the European and global arena. In addition, Russia is a major energy supplier for Europe. We should recognise Russia’s speedy economic growth but also note that it is based on high demand and the high prices of natural resources, especially oil and gas, in the global market. You cannot separate the economy from politics, unfortunately. However, energy resources should not be used as a pretext for continuing to place political pressure on countries that depend on Russia’s oil and gas.
In Lithuania, the oil refinery that belonged to Yukos, Mažeikių Nafta, was sold to the Polish company PKN Orlen, instead of being sold to a Russian company, and it instantly encountered problems with oil supplies from Russia. At the moment, the supply of oil from Russia has been completely cut, allegedly due to repairs to the pipeline, not to mention the cuts of gas to Ukraine and Belarus.
It is in the long-term interest of Russia and Europe to ensure new oil and gas network building, but there are also serious environmental concerns about building certain pipeline projects such as the planned pipeline between Russia and Germany across the Baltic Sea. That is of concern not only to Russia and Germany but to the countries on the coast of the Baltic Sea.
Europe is strongly interested in the continued economic development of Russia and in having Russia as a reliable and solid trading partner. I support Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organization. However, the trade should be in accordance with internationally applied standards, the rule of law and the universally agreed principles of neighbourliness and democracy.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Ms Vėsaitė. I call Mr Slutsky.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that this was the first time in recent years that a report on the Russian economy had been drawn up in a professional manner. The Russian Federation had its own distinctive economic identity and strategy. The diversification of energy strategy, the sale of oil and gas across the Pacific Ocean and the export of energy resources were important current issues. The Russian Federation was currently involved in trying to resolve international energy transit issues. When negotiating such international agreements, the key was to balance rights and obligations. He warned against environmental damage, noting that environmental issues were often politicised. The development of the Russian Federation’s economy in a sustainable manner was of essential importance.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Slutsky. I call Mr Fomenko.
Mr FOMENKO (Russian Federation). – There are several aspects of the report that I want to consider, the most important of which is the demographic situation in Russia. The rapporteur did not mention the most crucial figure: the active population in the Russian Federation is bigger in absolute terms than it was in Soviet times under the Russian socialist federation. That has come about because of measures relating to family life and health care which were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s just before the destruction of the Soviet system. The situation will not continue for more than ten or twelve years, during which time there is no need for the immigration of qualified labour as the report states, although of course Russia, like any other country, always needs some qualified immigrants.
We need immediate remedial measures in health care, family life, employment politics and – the toughest one to address – immigration control. Our economy does not need too many immigrants because our active population is much bigger than it was in Soviet times when GDP was much better and our economy was growing. Today’s population is much bigger than it was in the Soviet Union in the 1930s during the period of industrialisation. Our economy does not need a substantial number of immigrants.
Let me address the cultural aspects that exist in the business decision-making process. It would be much more convenient for Russian suppliers to have business relationships with Russian companies that own the refineries in Lithuania. We must not politicise something that is strictly a business matter. Anyone who is in business before being elected to parliament understands that there are cultural questions and preferences to consider.
We have to call on the European authorities to get the American authorities to cancel the trade-blocking measure known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment. It was adopted in the 1970s to force the Soviet – not Russian – Government to release the Jewish population. That is no longer an issue, but the amendment is still in force. It is stopped for part of every year, but it would be better to cancel that relic of the Cold War.
I thank the rapporteur for the job that he has done, but he should have paid more attention to the demographic situation in Russia.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Fomenko. I call Ms Christoffersen.
Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway). – I thank the rapporteur and the committee for this very important report on closer strategic co-operation between Russia and other European countries. It underlines the effective use of resources, foreign investments and technologies in new oil and gas fields in the Arctic region, energy efficiency and infrastructure. As a representative of Norway, I will take a regional perspective, as well as putting these matters in the context of environmental sustainability, with special attention to the high north.
The high north will make an important contribution to European integration. The region north of the 70th parallel, covering the areas of the Arctic adjacent to Norway, the northern-most parts of Scandinavia and Russia, and the ocean areas north of these countries, is an emerging European energy province, forming a new chapter in Norway’s co-operation with Russia following a thousand years of peace between our two countries. Since the end of the Cold War, we have discovered old patterns of trade and exchange. Since 1990, the number of people crossing the border has increased 33-fold. Developing our relations with Russia is a cornerstone of Norwegian high north policy. Last, but not least, the region is an early warning zone for climate change.
The Euro-Arctic Barents co-operation project, launched in 1993, integrates Russia and its Nordic neighbours in close co-operation. It is part of a broader effort in many areas, and operates on the same basis as the planned Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe centre for local and regional co-operation in St Petersburg, which we urge all member countries fully to support.
Security of energy supply is a major issue in European energy policy. Oil and gas will be our main energy source for decades. In Norway, new technological frontiers are crossed every day, with sub-sea installations that are safe for fishing vessels to trawl over. This technology is highly relevant to the Russian part of the Barents Sea – for instance, in the Stockman field, which alone could meet Germany’s gas consumption for the next twenty-five years.
Until now, the high north has been all about fish. The collapse of the cod stock in Canadian waters is a stark reminder of the necessity of long-term strategic planning and international co-operation in the management of living marine resources. To protect the balance of the marine eco-system, commercial interests, fisheries, aquaculture, shipping and the petroleum industry have to be managed in a sustainable manner. We must ensure that human activities are conducted with the utmost safety and followed by major research programmes.
The Arctic ice is already melting – an alarm signal to every decision maker at national, regional and global level. Climate policy must be an integrated dimension of a common energy policy. To meet the danger of climate change, the Arctic Council, in which nations such as the United States, Russia, Canada and the Nordic countries take part, forms an important arena for developing the common policy that is needed.
Unfortunately, the high north is not yet at the top of the European agenda, although it should be because it is closely linked to important issues such as energy security, resource management and climate change. In this effort, we are dependent on the continuation of good relations with Russia. This report constitutes a useful starting point. Thank you for your attention.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Ms Christoffersen. That concludes the list of speakers.
I call Mr Sasi, the rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes, which may be shared with the rapporteur of the committee for opinion.
Mr SASI (Finland). – Thank you very much, Mr President. First, I should like to thank the Political Affairs Committee for a very good report and a very good opinion, both of which have been very useful in formulating our opinions. I should like to thank all colleagues for their valuable comments.
I want to comment first on Mr Korobeynikov’s statement. Indeed, in the report, we encourage foreign investors and Russian partners to develop public-private partnerships for large projects. In fact, it was very much Mr Korobeynikov’s idea that was discussed in the Duma, and we have formed a good view of such legislation. I think that that is a very valuable way to go forward with big projects.
As for Mr Gross’s statements, it is very true that, when the economy is growing and living standards are higher, it is easier to have better human rights policies and that it is easier to afford them. It is very true that every country decides for itself how to utilise its natural resources. Every country has that freedom, but there should be certain policies and rules. People must expect those policies to continue, and they must not be allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game.
To Mr Dupraz, I should like to say that it is very important to get firm commitments from a country and for them to be kept. So we talk very much, but we implement too little. In this case, it is very important that promises are given by Russia, so that such policies can be implemented.
To Mr Sudarenkov, I should like to say that, indeed, there is great scientific potential in Russia, and it must be used. We refer especially to the exchanges of scientists and students as a way to use both western and Russian knowledge, so that we can all benefit from the best examples on both sides.
A common European landscape area is an interesting idea, but I just wonder whether it is something better suited to leadership by UNESCO.
As for agriculture, let me say that small farms are developing quite well at the moment. A lot of farms of about 50 hectares are producing many sorts of food. We think, for example, that soft loans should be given to those farms. There is some progress. Let us consider wheat, for example. For a long time, Russia has been a wheat importer; today, Russia exports wheat. That clearly shows a change in agricultural policies.
To Mr Ivanji, I should like to say that partnership is very important. That is why we have to co-operate within the framework of the Council of Europe.
Ms Vėsaitė was right when she said that we must make the economy grow, but we must also take into account ecological concerns. We should not have economic growth at any price. Indeed, there must always be a balance between the environment and the economy.
To Mr Slutsky, I should like to say that diversification is one of the key questions, as he very rightly pointed out. That is something that Russia has to do, and there are moves to go further along that road. I think that it is very natural that one tries to refine primary energy sources. It is clear that, when you have such resources, you want to sell them in refined form, and you are fully entitled to do so.
Mr President, I think that this discussion has been very useful, and I hope that it will form a good basis for further economic development in Russia. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Sasi.
Does the Chairman of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development wish to speak? I call Mrs Papadopoulos. You have two minutes.
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we have had a rich debate today. Mr Sasi’s report is rich in ideas and well balanced. It has the right amount of constructive criticism and sound proposals for action. I hope that our Russian colleagues benefit from our Assembly’s debate and conclusions and that they will make good use of these recommendations.
We all know that prosperity cannot be built overnight. We do not believe in miracles. However, we believe and trust in the development of human potential. We believe that Russia is a country with immense human development potential, and it needs to be unlocked efficiently. It is up to Russian politicians to develop the economic policies that are necessary for the country’s economy to grow, thus bringing work and benefits to all layers of its population.
There is no unique recipe for success. However, many lessons can be drawn from the experience of other European countries that have been quite successful in overcoming painful economic reforms. Perseverance in economic reforms and the full development of the activity of the Russian people will enable Russia to become a major economic player on the global scene.
I trust that the close economic partnership between Russia and other European countries will eventually prove fruitful, with all sorts of exchanges to the benefit of a stronger, greater Europe.
I congratulate Mr Sasi on his excellent report, and on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development I thank all the participants in this debate. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mrs Papadopoulos. The debate is closed.
The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development has presented a draft resolution, to which eight amendments and three sub-amendments have been tabled.
They will be taken in the order in the following order: Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and sub-amendment, 3 and sub-amendment, 7 and sub-amendment, 4, 8, 5 and 6.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.
We now come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the words “lack of diversification”, insert the following words: “as well as shortcomings in the rule of law, and widespread corruption”.
I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support Amendment No. 1.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the amendment’s purpose was to add a reference in paragraph 2 to corruption. It was important to combat corruption, hence the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 1 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, insert the following paragraph:
“International scientific and technological co-operation is an important factor in sustaining the competitiveness of the Russian economy. It is therefore counterproductive that such co-operation has in fact been discouraged by the recent series of criminal prosecutions launched against senior scientists for alleged espionage or violation of official secrecy.”
I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support Amendment No. 2.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the amendment covered the subject of international scientific and technical co-operation. That was important because it contributed to the sustained competitiveness of the Russian economy. That would be hampered if prosecutions were launched against senior scientists. Prosecutions had been launched when the state had alleged that security had been breached.
THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Kimmo Sasi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, in Amendment No. 2, replace the second sentence with the following sentence:
“It is therefore important that scientific freedom is guaranteed, that officials do not get involved in research activities in the country and that the state secret protection system should not be used as an obstacle to international scientific co-operation.”
I now call Mr Sasi to support the sub-amendment.
Mr SASI (Finland). – The first sentence of Amendment No. 2 is exactly right, because international scientific and technological co-operation is very important. The second sentence, however, is perhaps a little too offensive. We would like to give broader scope to the whole topic. We therefore want to state that scientific freedom should be guaranteed and that there should not be any involvement of officials in research activities. The committee is in favour of the broader version encapsulated in the sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany). – I am in favour of the sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment.
The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No.2, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development on the amendment?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 2, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17, after the second sentence, insert the following sentence:
“As a matter of mutual confidence, ‘rules should not be changed during the game’, and the supply of energy should not be abused as a means of political pressure.”
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support Amendment No. 3.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the amendment was intended to make it clear that it was vital to establish mutual confidence. Energy supplies should not be used for political pressure: economic considerations should be the priority.
THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Kimmo Sasi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, in Amendment No. 3, replace the words “should not be abused as a means of political pressure” with the following words: “should be guaranteed on purely commercial terms”.
I call Mr Sasi to support the sub-amendment.
Mr SASI (Finland). – The first part of this amendment is very good because it states that “rules should not be changed during the game”. However, the second part tells us what should not be done but does not propose what should be done or on what terms. The sub-amendment offers broader scope by proposing that when energy is sold, that should be done on commercial terms. That represents a more positive way of saying the same thing and setting out what the main rule is.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany). – I am in favour of the sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 3, as amended? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development on the Amendment?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 3, as amended, is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, Mr Valery Fedorov, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov and Mr Bernard Marquet, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 19, delete the words “– and hopes that the country will soon join the Group of States against Corruption – GRECO”.
I call Mr Korobeynikov to support Amendment No. 7.
Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) sought to delete a passage in paragraph 19 because it was not accurate.
THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Kimmo Sasi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, at the end of Amendment No. 7, add the following words: “and insert the words: ‘and the fact that the country will soon join the Group of States against Corruption – GRECO’”.
I call Mr Sasi to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.
Mr SASI (Finland). – Mr Korobeynikov is exactly right to say that ratification has taken place by Russia, but he proposes that we do not mention these matters. My sub-amendment proposes that we should welcome Russia and say that it is a good thing that it is joining the group. That is why I want to include the words “and the fact that the country will soon join”. That will then describe the facts of the case.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation). – I support the sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – The committee is in favour.
The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 7, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 7, as amended, is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 19, insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly also recalls its Resolution 1418 (2005) and Recommendation 1692 (2005) on the circumstances of the arrest and prosecution of leading Yukos executives and regrets that subsequent developments have shown that the Assembly’s well-founded and constructive criticism was not taken into account by the competent Russian authorities.”
I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support Amendment No. 4, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the amendment recalled previous resolutions of the committee that had already been adopted by the Assembly. Legal reforms were required and the resolution should address that issue.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Slutsky.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was an unacceptable political inclusion in an excellent report. It addressed a different issue, and the report could not be accepted if that amendment were included.
THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 4 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, Mr Valery Fedorov, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov and Mr Bernard Marquet, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20.9, delete the words “the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (CETS No. 173) and”.
I call Mr Korobeynikov to support Amendment No. 8.
Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that the reasons for the amendment were the same as those for the previous amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 8 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 21.1, add the following words: “in so far as this is justified in view of progress made by the Russian Federation as regards the rule of law and the fight against corruption”.
I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support Amendment No. 5.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that access to the economy was an important objective. It was in the interests of the Council of Europe that progress be made on the rule of law and the fight against corruption. It was important to establish better relations with the European Union and to achieve accession to the World Trade Organization.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 5 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 21.2, add the following words: “and ensure that the European Union attaches due importance to the Council of Europe’s concerns regarding the rule of law and human rights”.
I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to support Amendment No. 6.
Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that the objective of the amendment was the same as for the previous two amendments. An explicit reference was necessary to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in relation to the negotiation of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 6 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11026, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 11026, as amended, is adopted, with 46 votes for, 7 against and 2 abstentions.
6. The promotion of local self-government along Council of Europe borders
THE PRESIDENT. – The final item of business this morning is the debate on the report by Mr Gubert on “The promotion of local self-government along Council of Europe borders”, which will be presented by Mr Schmied on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Document 11009.
The list of speakers closed yesterday at 5.30 p.m. Two names are on the list.
I call Mr Schmied to present the report. He has eight minutes.
Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland) said that the report had been very important to Mr Gubert although he was no longer a member of the Assembly. The role of local authorities was essential in strengthening democratic values. The Assembly had always stressed the importance of co-operation between local governments, and the Council of Europe should strengthen its links with local governments, especially in those countries on the borders of the Council of Europe member states.
Local autonomy was very important, particularly within Council of Europe member states, and could contribute to democratic values and subsidiarity. Council of Europe member states should not be isolated, as that would increase the difficulties with third countries. Isolation was not possible in a globalised world and the Council of Europe should take advantage of globalisation to assist neighbouring states to take up democratic values. Europe should show political common sense to guarantee stability at its borders and to increase the pace of democracy.
The Council of Europe had considerable experience, a clear acquis and an arsenal of legal and political instruments, bodies and institutions through which to operate. Council of Europe member states should respect local self-government and autonomy as its experience had demonstrated the contribution that local government could make to strengthening human rights and democracy. Autonomy varied according to different historical developments in different states. The draft resolution encouraged member states on the borders of Europe to establish co-operation with third countries. It followed resolutions on external relations agreed by the Assembly at the June part-session.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. In the debate, I call Mr Dupraz, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that the Chairperson of the Committee had made all the salient points. It was a very interesting report and it was regrettable that Mr Gubert was not present. The Council of Europe had borders but no boundary wall, so it was necessary to establish good relations with neighbouring states. Geneva possessed 100 km of borders with France and Switzerland and the central government was not able to resolve all the border issues. Local autonomy was therefore important. Good personal relations across borders made it easier to achieve.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Smirnova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mrs SMIRNOVA (Russian Federation) said that her political group supported the report. The issue
of trans-border co-operation was very topical. The Council of Europe must not look inwards but should promote its values outside its borders. The Russian Federation had always supported the importance of local autonomy and the Russian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers had paid attention to that issue.
The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs had heard from the Permanent Representative of Norway about the idea of having a centre on trans-border issues in St Petersburg. The committee had supported that initiative, although the terms of reference for the centre were not yet finalised. Its work should be enriched by that of member states.
The Russian Federation had made some progress on the development of transfrontier co-operation. It was important to bring other countries up to the level of common European standards and to improve local services and the quality of life for people actually living on borders.
(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Holovaty.)
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Smirnova.
That concludes the list of speakers.
I call Mr Schmied to reply on behalf of the rapporteur. You have four minutes.
Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland) expressed gratitude for the praise that the report had received. The two contributions to the debate had been excellent. It was regrettable that three political groups had not contributed to the debate.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Schmied.
The debate is closed.
The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs has presented a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11009.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 11009 is adopted unanimously, by 23 votes.
I congratulate the rapporteur. Mr Gubert was always a very good member of this Assembly, who made worthwhile contributions and reports.
THE PRESIDENT. – We have now come to the end of our business.
I thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs of committees, for their hard work during this part-session. I also thank the staff, both permanent and temporary, and all the interpreters who have worked hard to make the part-session a success.
The first part of the 2007 Session will be held from Monday 22 to Friday 26 January 2007.
I declare the fourth part of the 2006 Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 12.30 p.m.)
2. Changes in the membership of committees
3. The need to reconcile work and family life
Presentation by Mrs Papadopoulos of the report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (Doc. 11019)
Speakers
Mrs Bargholtz (Sweden)
Ms Woldseth (Norway)
Mr Grignon (France)
Mr Meyer (France)
Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)
Mrs Smirnova (Russian Federation)
Replies
Mrs Papadopoulos (Cyprus)
Mrs Cliveti (Romania)
Draft recommendation adopted.
5. Europe’s interest in the continued economic development of Russia
Presentation by Mr Sasi of the report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Doc. 11026
Presentation by Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11063
Speakers
Mr Korobeynikov (Russian Federation)
Mr Gross (Switzerland)
Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)
Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)
Mr Ivanji (Serbia)
Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)
Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)
Mr Fomenko (Russian Federation)
Ms Christoffersen (Norway)
Replies
Mr Sasi (Finland)
Mrs Papadopoulos (Cyprus)
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 as amended, 3 as amended, 7 as amended, 4, 8, 5 and 6 adopted.
Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.
6. The promotion of local self-government along Council of Europe borders
Presentation by Mr Schmied of the report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Document 11009
Speakers
Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)
Mrs Smirnova (Russian Federation)
Reply
Mr Schmied (Switzerland)
Draft recommendation adopted.