2007 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fourth sitting

Tuesday 23 January 2007 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 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the second sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections the minutes are agreed to.

They are agreed to.

2. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – Because we are considering a large number of amendments to draft texts to three reports this afternoon, I propose a limit of thirty seconds speaking time on each amendment. Is this agreed to?

It is agreed to.

I also remind members that we agreed yesterday that speeches this afternoon will be limited to four minutes.

We will first take the votes on the draft resolution and the draft recommendation in the report on child victims, which we debated this morning. Then, at about 4 p.m., we will begin the debate on the report of the Political Affairs Committee on the peril of using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure, Document 11116. We will need to interrupt the debate at about 5.35 pm to allow time for the replies and the votes.

The final debate this afternoon on the report of the Monitoring Committee on honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia, Document 11117, will begin at about 6.30 p.m. We will need to interrupt the debate at about 7.20 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the votes in order to finish at 7.30 p.m.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed to.

3. Votes on the draft resolution on child victims

THE PRESIDENT. – We now come to the votes on the draft resolution on the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on child victims: stamping out all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse, Document 11118. Thirty amendments have been tabled. I have also been informed of two oral amendments and four oral sub-amendments.

We start with Amendment No. 3.

I understand that Mr Malins wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, but first I must call him to move Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell, Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, delete the word: “fundamental”.

Mr Malins’s oral sub-amendment reads as follows: in paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, delete the word “fundamental” and replace with the word “important”

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I want to shorten matters by withdrawing 16 of my amendments. Fifteen have been agreed and I shall ask for a vote on only three, so I am trying to be helpful. I would like to withdraw Amendment No. 3 but submit a compromise oral sub-amendment replacing the word “fundamental” with the word “important”, which I understand has been agreed by the rapporteur, to whom I most grateful for his co-operation.

THE PRESIDENT. – I see that the rapporteur agrees.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the committee agreed with the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – That means that Amendment No. 3 is withdrawn and that we have an oral sub-amendment to change the word “fundamental” to the word “important”. 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.

The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

In my opinion, it is not necessary to vote on the amendment as amended, because everyone was in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, after the word “violence”, insert the following words: “(save for reasonable chastisement administered by a person who is the child’s parent or in loco parentis)”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I have believed for a long time that parents should have the right of reasonable chastisement, by which I mean a smack in relation to discipline. For the avoidance of doubt, and to help the translators, I mean a smack with the flat of the hand, not a clenched fist. That has been used to good effect for many years in the United Kingdom. For goodness’ sake let us give a bit of authority and power to parents.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Etherington

Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – What we are talking about here is assault. We discussed this matter two years ago, and on a majority vote it was agreed that parents should not have the right to subject their children to corporal punishment. It is brutal and old-fashioned. It has certain biblical connotations but it is unacceptable in this day and age.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the committee disagreed with the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, before the words “member states”, insert the following word: “some”.

I understand that Mr Malins wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment. First, I must call him to speak to Amendment No. 5.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Yes, but I wish to withdraw it on the basis that I want to propose an oral sub-amendment to insert “certain” instead of “some”. I am embarrassed about this because that means the same thing, but apparently I agreed it this morning with the very capable rapporteur. He is entirely happy with the use of “certain”.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said she was against the sub-amendment because it would reduce the scope since the word “certain” was more restrictive.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall put to the vote whether the oral sub-amendment is to be debated. If 10 members or more are against including it on the agenda, it will not be accepted. Those who are against debating the oral sub-amendment should raise their hands. In fact, it will be better to have an electronic vote. Those who are against have to vote yes. Things are not completely clear.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment cannot be debated.

The amendment was withdrawn, so to my mind it is no longer on the list.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Mr President, I was withdrawing it on the basis that there would be an oral sub-amendment accepted. If the oral sub-amendment is not to be accepted, I would like that to be put to the vote. It means the same thing.

THE PRESIDENT. – There is a point of order.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – On a point of order, Mr President. In the previous vote, I understood that you were asking for 10 or more objections. You were not opening the vote for those for and those against. The figures that appeared on the screen indicated a figure of 88, but I did not see 88 people raise their hands earlier. There is a question whether the number was nine or 10.

THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry to say that the number was not clear when there was a show of hands. For that reason, I asked for an electronic vote. More than 10 members – 48 or 49 – were against voting on the oral sub-amendment. That means that it was not accepted as part of a further discussion.

Baroness KNIGHT (United Kingdom). – On a point of order, Mr President. There was considerable confusion, because you had earlier said that those in favour should vote yes. I was against and I voted no. I think I was counted in with the others, which I did not mean to happen at all.

THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, but I said that those who did not want this on the agenda for a vote had to vote yes. I repeated it two or three times. Even if there are some who made a mistake, 48 is a much greater number than is necessary. We needed only 10.

We shall now deal with Amendment No. 5.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said the word “some” was not appropriate as this applied to more than “some”.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said the committee disagreed.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is rejected.

Amendment No. 6 has been withdrawn by Mr Malins.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Boriss Cilevičs and Mr Dick Marty, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, replace the words “Resolution 61/... on the rights of the child adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 2006” with the following words:

“Resolution 61/146 on the rights of the child adopted by the UN General Assembly on 19 December 2006”.

I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the amendment spoke for itself.

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

The committee is clearly in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the word “essential” with the following word: “important”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I believe that this amendment has been agreed by the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said that it was very important to keep the word “essential”.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

Amendment No. 8 has been withdrawn by Mr Malins.

Amendment No. 4 was not adopted, so Amendment No. 9 falls.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 have been withdrawn by Mr Malins.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, after the words “suited to children”, insert the following words: “, where they are not in place already”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – This amendment has been discussed and agreed with the rapporteur. I hope that I need say no more.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 12, add the following words:

“Further, the Assembly calls on all member states to provide specialist training to a proportion of their judges in relation to child issues.”

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – It is very sensible for each country to give specialist training on child issues to those judges who are particularly interested in trying such cases. The amendment has been agreed with the rapporteur.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mrs McCafferty to raise a point of order.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I reported a problem with the voting yesterday and was told that it was not possible that it was not working. However, for the first three votes, my light only came on when you closed the vote. My vote has therefore not been recorded. Clearly, there is a problem that needs addressing. I suggest that the votes of members with a similar problem are recorded.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you for that information. It is, of course, necessary that everybody can vote. I ask the technician to have a look at the matter. I call Mr Etherington on a point of order.

Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – Mr President, when you say, “The vote is open”, people press their buttons, but the vote is not open. Only when they keep their finger on the button for several seconds until the light comes on is their vote recorded. There is obviously a delay.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the word “welcomes” with the following word: “deplores”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I want to put this matter to the vote because it recommends yet more institutions in member states which I do not think necessary. Nor do I approve of having an ombudsman to which children can have direct access. The problem is that we should implement our existing laws properly rather than setting up yet more institutions. I hope that those who think that the power of the state should not be extended will support me.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said this amendment ran totally contrary to the recommendation’s intention. He was in favour of establishing a children’s ombudsman. The High Commissioner for Human Rights was also in favour.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is rejected.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Malins which applies only to the English version of the text. It reads as follows:

“In paragraph 14.2 of the draft resolution delete the word ‘spiritual’ and replace with the word ‘psychological’.”

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 amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Malins to support his oral amendment.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – This deals with something that has been lost in the translation. The translation should have used the word “psychological”. We were a little distressed by the use of the word “spiritual”, but I understand that it was not the intention to talk about religion, so we would be happy with this change.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

Amendment No. 16 therefore falls. I understand that Mr Malins is withdrawing Amendment No. 17.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.4.1, after the word “suspend”, insert the following words: “, where a relevant provision does not already exist, “.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The amendment has been agreed with the rapporteur.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 18 is adopted.

I understand that Mr Malins is withdrawing Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I understand also that he wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, but first I must call him to move Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.4.3, before the word “offences”, insert the following words: “the most serious”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – In formally supporting the amendment, I explain that the oral sub-amendment would simply insert the word “serious” rather than the words in the amendment. We are talking about serious offences rather than the most serious. It has been agreed with the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Malins’s oral sub-amendment reads as follows:

“In paragraph 14.4.3 of the draft resolution, before the word ‘offences’ insert the word ‘serious’.”

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?

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said she was against this oral sub-amendment because it was unclear who would define the term “serious”. She queried whether this term was being used to define the impact on children.

THE PRESIDENT. – Will those who are against debating the oral sub-amendment raise their hands? There are not more than 10. I call Mr Malins to support his oral sub-amendment.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – As I explained, I support the oral sub-amendment to insert the word “serious”.

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

What is the opinion of the committee on the oral sub-amendment?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14.4.6, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to encourage member states to introduce legislation forbidding convicted child sex offenders from travelling abroad.”

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 22

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – In the United Kingdom, we have measures to prevent convicted child sex offenders from travelling abroad: travel orders. They are quite useful in the fight against sex tourism. We merely suggest that member states consider introducing such legislation because it can be an effective way of preventing harm and stopping convicted sex offenders from going to destinations where they can practise their evil trade.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said he thought this amendment should be made in paragraph 14.4.7.

THE PRESIDENT. – This is an oral amendment.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco). – I agree with the text proposed by Mr Malins, but I would like it to be paragraph 14.4.7.

THE PRESIDENT. – It is already the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 22 is adopted.

I understand that Mr Malins wishes to propose an oral amendment in place of his Amendment No. 23.

Does Mr Malins therefore wish to withdraw Amendment No. 23?

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – Yes, I do.

Amendment No. 23 would have deleted words supporting the establishment of an ombudsman for children that they could approach directly. I thought that that was rather silly, especially because my children might have done that at my expense on my mobile phone on any Sunday morning after I had given them a rocket. I wish to insert the words “in serious cases” to avoid trivial or unimportant matters being phoned through to the ombudsman by children willy-nilly – if that can be translated into a foreign language.

THE PRESIDENT. – You withdraw Amendment No. 23.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I believe that that has been accepted by the rapporteur as being sensible.

THE PRESIDENT. – I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity and so on. In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom). – The amendment trivialises a serious situation. Wales has had a children ombudsman for several years, but there has never been any serious abuse of the provision, which has been useful for children in serious distress. There should be no limit. I hope that England will follow the example of Wales and take a more progressive line.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 24 tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.3, replace the words “judicial services” with the following words: “prosecuting authorities”.

I understand that Mr Malins wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, but first I must call him to support Amendment No. 24.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I do so formally, and hope that the oral sub-amendment will be agreed to instead of it. The original text referred to co-operation between the police and the judicial services. There is no such co-operation in the United Kingdom because judges are utterly independent. I originally wanted the text to refer to co-operation with prosecuting authorities, but following discussions with the rapporteur, it was felt that a better phrase, which finds favour, would be “investigatory bodies”.

THE PRESIDENT. – In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is accepted.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Boriss Cilevičs and Mr Dick Marty.

The amendment applies to only the French version of the text.

I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said he supported this amendment, which applied only to the French version of the text.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 25 tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.4, after the words “exchange of information”, insert the following words:

“to which file all interested parties should have access”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 25.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The amendment deals with a database of information relating to child victims and child abuse. It is important that all interested parties should have access to this; for example, a wrongly accused person should be able to have access. I believe that the proposal has been agreed by the rapporteur.

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

Mr VIS (United Kingdom). – An abuser could be seen as an interested party. I do not like the wording at all.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 25 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 26, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.4, delete the words:

“, and with a view to creating an observatory of ill treatment in each state, and at the European level which would establish reliable statistics on cases of violence, exploitation and abuse involving children”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 26.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The amendment refers to the creation of “an observatory of ill treatment in each state” and I wish to delete those words. So many bodies have been set up to protect the interests of children and it is a waste of money to have an observatory in every state to add to what we already have. I urge colleagues to support the deletion of those words.

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

Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – Mr President, you have opened an exhibition at lunch time about children where we saw that even in our countries in western Europe things are far from well. Nothing that purports to make things better should be refused. We always keep hearing why things should not be accepted. I suggest that this should be.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 26 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 29, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 16.4, delete the words “control and”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 29.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – I want to delete the words contained in the amendment to make more sense. This has been agreed with the rapporteur.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation) . – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 29 is adopted.

Amendment No. 30 has been withdrawn.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11118, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11118, as amended, is adopted, with 118 votes for, 8 against and 7 abstentions.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has also presented a draft recommendation to which nine amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr Humfrey Malins, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Robert Walter, Mr James Clappison, Mr Tim Boswell and Mr John Greenway, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, after the words “mentioned in the resolution”, insert the following words:

“requiring a response within 6 months confirming action taken”.

I call Mr Malins to support Amendment No. 31.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The amendment requires a response within six months and is merely a way of provoking people to act on what we say and to respond. I believe that it makes sense and has been agreed.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr. MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 31 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 37, tabled by Mrs Carina Ohlsson, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to instruct the relevant governmental committees to propose measures to facilitate and optimise children’s access to the appeals and complaints procedures for upholding the rights bestowed on them by the Council of Europe’s existing legal instruments, and in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the (revised) European Social Charter.”

I call Mrs Ohlsson to support Amendment. No. 37.

Mrs OHLSSON (Sweden). – The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee believes that the amendment speaks for itself.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 37 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 38, tabled by Mrs Carina Ohlsson, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to make sure that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights and the members of the European Committee of Social Rights and the other committees concerned receive special training in children’s rights issues.”

I call Mrs Ohlsson to support Amendment No. 38.

Mrs OHLSSON (Sweden). – As I have said, society needs professionals in prosecuting authorities and social services to have education, training and guidance in these matters. The same should apply to judges, as the amendment suggests.

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

I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that it would be impractical for judges in the Supreme Court to receive special training in relation to children.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the committee was opposed. Judges received sufficient training.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 38 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 39, tabled by Mrs Carina Ohlsson, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to find ways and means of involving children as much as possible in the work done pursuant to this Recommendation and to have any legal instrument that may be adopted translated into a version and a language children can understand.”

I call Mrs Ohlsson to support Amendment No. 39.

Mrs OHLSSON (Sweden). – I think that the amendment is better than the oral sub-amendment from the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Gardetto’s oral sub-amendment reads as follows: In the proposed additional text to be inserted after paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation, delete from “this” to end.

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 therefore call Mr Gardetto to support his oral sub-amendment.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that his oral sub-amendment was straightforward. It was a good idea to involve children, but proposing that all legal documents and instruments be translated for children was unrealistic.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Mrs Ohlsson.

Mrs OHLSSON (Sweden) . – The amendment is very important as to involve children it is important to translate texts into versions that children can understand.

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

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 39, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 39, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11118, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11118, as amended, is adopted with 111 votes for, 6 against and 3 abstentions.

I congratulate the rapporteur, the committee and the rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee on this profound debate. Maud De Boer Buquicchio has delivered a great result today.

4. Meeting between President of the Assembly and chairpersons of national delegations

THE PRESIDENT. – I must inform the Assembly that the meeting which I planned to hold with the chairpersons of national delegations at 5.30 p.m. today has been postponed for the simple reason that it was not foreseen that would be voting at that time. I cannot and will not hold a meeting during a vote on an important report. It will now be held between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday. The venue for the meeting will be announced in due course.

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

5. Debate on the peril of using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on the peril of using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure presented by Mr Mihkelson on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11116, with opinions presented by Mr Wille on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Document 11132, and Mr Ivan Ivanov on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Document 11139.

The list of speakers closed at 12 noon today: 46 names are on the list, and 40 amendments and five sub-amendments have been tabled.

I remind the Assembly that we have agreed to interrupt the debate at 5.35 p.m. in order to allow time for the replies and votes.

I call Mr Lindblad on a point of order.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – There is a slight problem, because all the heads of delegations have been invited to meet the President.

THE PRESIDENT. – That has been postponed. You came in a bit too late.

I call Mr Mihkelson, who has eight minutes.

Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – This report discusses energy. Energy security has been one of the most important topics in the past few months in several international forums and organisations. We all know that energy inter-dependency is growing rapidly, and that has raised many questions and problems. We must decide how we will address those problems both today and in the future. It is very good that an organisation such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which includes 46 member states on the European continent, is discussing this topic. As we have heard, 46 colleagues need to be squeezed in to speak in one and a half hours, which shows that the topic is in the minds of most Council of Europe member states.

The report was initiated just one year ago in January 2006 following the so-called gas crisis between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The report focuses on the political dimension of the possibility of using energy supply as a tool to apply political pressure. We saw what happened last January between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on setting gas prices. Unfortunately, the use of energy supply as a political tool has arisen in several other cases during the past year. The issue is urgent, because just a couple of weeks ago gas prices and oil prices became an issue between two neighbouring states in Europe, namely Russia and Belarus.

I am very happy that discussions of the topic in the Political Affairs Committee have not involved disagreements between members of different delegations. No one supported the idea of using energy supply as a tool to apply political pressure, and that is reflected in the report.

If we truly want to build up Europe without dividing lines, we have to understand that energy plays a central role. It can be a great integrator but also a great divider. I hope that this Assembly, in standing for the rule of law and democracy in our member states, would condemn any possibility of trying to use energy supply to fight against democratic moves to freer societies, something that we have unfortunately seen in the cases of the crisis between Russia and Ukraine and of the relations between Russia and Georgia.

There is a much wider dimension to this issue. In talking about future energy security, we should address not only questions of the use of energy as a tool of political pressure but questions such as the transparency of companies, mutual access based on market economy principles, production, transportation and distribution. As is reflected in the report, the instrument that would help us to move ahead in this field is the energy charter treaty and its protocol on transit. That is truly an international framework that combines countries not only in Europe but globally – from Japan to the United States and from Australia to China. In the report, I strongly argue that member states that belong to the Council of Europe, including the Russian Federation, should fulfil the obligations that they took on in signing the document in 1994 by ratifying it. Core countries such as Norway, which has reservations about the treaty, should also seriously consider that.

In aiming to achieve a freer and more secure energy market throughout the European continent, we have to address very frankly the questions and threats involved in energy supply and consumption. During the discussions in the Political Affairs Committee, and here today, we have acknowledged the importance of discussions about energy security and finding ways of making our relations within the European continent and between member states of the Council of Europe freer, more transparent and more focused on mutual interest. I hope that today’s discussion and adoption of the draft resolution and recommendation will work in that way to make this debate more substantial and focused on the future to achieve a freer and more secure energy market in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Wille, Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Mr WILLE (Belgium). – Our committee met to discuss this item extensively on Friday. We decided not to introduce amendments because our general point of view was that the text produced by our colleagues in the commission was a good one. Members of the committee taking a more economic approach can accept the text as it is. Nevertheless, our opinion is that the market price is decided not only by suppliers but on the basis of whether it is a buyer’s or a seller’s market. The price of a car is not the same everywhere, so the same should apply to energy. What is important, apart from the price itself, is that we should be harmonised. There are other issues, such as the guaranteeing of supply. When it comes to the availability of energy, we feel that diversity of sources, on the one hand, and infrastructure on a diversified basis, on the other, should be in place to guarantee smooth supply in the future. From an economic point of view, that should be enough to support the value of the report by the commission.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Ivan Ivanov, Rapporteur of the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.

Mr IVAN IVANOV (Bulgaria) congratulated Mr Mihkelson on his report and said that the role of energy was important to the development of any country. However, energy resources were limited and therefore most countries had to rely on imports of oil and gas. This was especially true of countries in central and eastern Europe which relied on imports from the Russian Federation. In 2006, the actions of Gazprom gave the impression that energy supply had been used for political ends.

European countries needed to develop renewable energy resources to increase their security of supply. Some renewable sources, such as solar or wave power, had high initial investment costs, and therefore it was important also to encourage cheaper sources such as biomass and biofuels. It was cost-effective to increase fuel efficiency, and this would also lead to a reduction in waste and improvements in quality of life. Policy needed to be developed to improve the efficiency of fuel use in the transport and industrial sectors.

Diversity of energy supply was also important. This needed to include both where the energy originated and where it was transported through. Full ratification of the energy treaty and its protocol on transit would be important in bringing this about. A pan- European strategy for energy supply was essential.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Baroness Hooper on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – My interest in this subject arises because I was formerly an energy minister in my country, with specific responsibility for energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. I am also currently a governor of the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London.

My congratulations go to the main rapporteur and to the rapporteurs of the two opinions. As a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, I regret that Mrs Veenendaal was not able to present her opinion herself after working so hard on its preparation, but fortunately Mr Wille came to the rescue most gallantly.

In the short time available, and in representing the European Democratic Group’s views, I wish to support the overall thrust of the report and opinions – namely, that security of supply in the energy sector is an increasingly important foreign policy challenge for Europe and that the development of a collective policy based on an open, transparent and clearly regulated market is the best way to meet that challenge.

      I am not against a differential pricing system, which can sometimes provide a very fair solution to demand for, and use of, precious energy and other resources, provided that everybody understands it. I therefore support in particular paragraphs 11 and 13 of the main report in that respect.

      In addition, I urge member state governments to do everything in their power to encourage energy efficiency and diversification of supply, especially from renewable energy sources – not only for reasons of climate change, but to ensure security of supply. It is for us to give a good example. We cannot impose stiffer rules for the developing world when some developed countries are profligate in their use of scarce resources.

      Finally, the report focuses on recent incidents concerning the Russian Federation, which is, after all, one of the four major gas suppliers in the world and on which Europe has an 80% dependency. In considering those incidents, I draw attention to the wider context and to the fact that political uncertainty affects supplies from many other regions – for example, Venezuela and Bolivia, and indeed most of the Middle East.

      Looking to the future, I point to the new phenomenon of China as a major investor in, and owner of, oil and gas resources in all parts of the world, including Africa and Latin America.

      We all have a responsibility, whether as producers, transit countries or consumers. Therefore, I emphasise once again the need for collective dialogue and for open and transparent mechanisms to which every country can adhere and can be seen to adhere.

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

      Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – We are now probably in a peak oil situation. Up to 25% of the remaining oil and gas resources are probably in the high north. The situation in that area, before we have even started to exploit the oil and gas, involves airborne toxic waste, melting ice and nuclear waste, as well as overfishing.

      Within 40 years, the ice will probably not be present for more than five or six months a year, with enormous consequences for the wildlife in the high north. Oil-producing countries could have to release more fossil fuels than they would like, if they give consideration to the environmental situation in the Arctic. Climate change and its link to overuse of oil and gas are important to us all.

      Of course oil-producing countries should be predictable suppliers, but the issue that we are debating today could be put the other way round: the pressure from oil and gas-importing countries to release more and more hydrocarbons without doing enough to introduce new measures on renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy savings could cause us to put the real environmental threat behind us.

      The report stresses that the principles of the market economy must rule, and it is almost saying that the market price is a fair price, but that does not consider the fact that the environment also pays a price. So also will future generations of Europeans.

      When Russia stopped the gas supply to Ukraine, United States spokespersons said that the market should of course decide the price, but there is a threat to close down energy supplies. US senators have proposed an initiative for energy crises similar to that in respect of NATO and Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Those ideas were also presented during the NATO Riga meeting by Prime Minister Tony Blair, stressing that if energy supplies are not predictable and delivered, we must take action.

      I warn against such an attitude. Rather, importing countries should try to get out of dependency by thinking of alternative energy solutions. The Group of the Unified European Left will vote against the report, because it is not balanced. It puts pressure on oil-producing countries to produce more and not to consider our need to come up with alternative energy sources.

      I draw attention to US Senator Hillary Clinton, who last week presented herself not only as a presidential candidate, but as someone who is in dialogue with the people of the United States and of the rest of the world. She made two important points: how to withdraw from Iraq and how to stop US dependency on foreign oil? In other words, in a way, she wants to stop the expensive wars that we fight for cheap oil and to start to think of alternative solutions.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Dzembritzki, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr DZEMBRITZKI (Germany) thanked Mr Mihkelson and the other rapporteurs for their opinions. Energy was also an important factor in social welfare and development. There was common ground between the needs of both energy-producing and energy-consuming countries. Some energy-producing countries were poor, such as Angola, but Europe had the potential to ensure that all stakeholders benefited, provided the necessary political processes were in place.

      A new working group on energy was a good idea, but individual countries would still need to play a role. Problems of energy supply were becoming more acute. Developing countries needed increased amount of energy, especially China. The global population was projected to reach 9 billion by 2050. The majority of this increase would be in developing countries. Fossil fuels had a limited life and their combustion caused additional problems. There was limited time left to find solutions to these problems, so it was important to frame appropriate policy alternatives as quickly as possible.

      Renewable energy supplied 10% of Germany’s needs, and had to increase to 20%. This would still not be enough to solve the underlying problems. The working group therefore needed to use its influence to bring about a dramatic increase in research.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Dzembritzki. I call Mr Németh, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary). – The “mini oil crisis” this January, which saw Moscow shutting down pipelines containing gas destined for millions of European consumers because of its dispute with Belarus, has yet again shaken our continually crumbling confidence in Russia as a reliable energy supplier. The positive aspect is that Europe is now awakening from its deep sleep.

Let me make clear at the start that it is not some obsolete Russophobia which guides our thoughts on the subject. We would welcome Russian investments in our economies, as long as they were transparent and not politically driven. We would like to pursue balanced trade relations with Russia, based on market principles but free of strategic carrots and sticks. Unfortunately, evidence indicates the contrary.

We are witnessing Russia using hydrocarbon supplies to blackmail neighbouring countries into giving up sovereignty over their energy sectors. That happened last year with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and recently with Belarus. Twice in the last 12 months, Europeans experienced at first hand how it feels to measure crashing gas pressures and crude oil supplies at the lower end of pipelines that have been blocked for political reasons. Furthermore, Russia declines to ratify the energy charter that may pave the way towards a transparent Russian energy sector. It is shutting out foreign investors from its own energy market or blackmailing them into submission, as happened with Shell and its Japanese partners over their Sakhalin-II project.

The state monopoly, Gazprom, deprives itself of the capital, know-how and mindset of true market-based business. Instead of investing in resources and infrastructure, hence securing a long-term supply, Gazprom seems intent on securing geopolitical positions by buying into downstream assets all over Europe. Inconceivable as it is, Russia is already dependent on central Asian imports to meet its domestic and international commitments. The gap between supply and demand will grow only in the next few years, with Russian trying to monopolise domestic and international markets.

We must therefore challenge efforts to monopolise our markets and increase our energy exposure. We Europeans must set aside our selfishness and short-sightedness and resist attempts to divide et impera, for such options might offer short-term advantages for individual countries, but they entail grave long-term consequences for the energy security of the whole of Europe. We must establish, on the basis of solidarity, a common energy policy for the European continent and the European Union, for it is only when it speaks with one voice that Europe will be listened to as the world’s largest market of energy imports.

The other key point concerns diversification of the energy mix, as well as of the sources and transport routes for imported natural gas. We need alternative and renewable energies. We also need alternative pipelines, such as the planned Nabucco pipeline. A Europe of solidarity and diversified energy markets may result in a more flexible Russia and confidence-based EU-Russian energy co-operation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Németh. I call Mr Eörsi to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – A year ago, after the dispute between Ukraine and Russia about gas prices, I proposed that the Assembly hold an urgent debate, and the request was rejected. I have to admit that the Assembly was right. I do not say that I was wrong, but the Assembly was certainly right. As the rapporteur rightly said, what happened recently between Belarus and Russia showed that that was not an ad hoc situation. It is an ongoing problem, and I am seriously worried that we will face a horrible situation in future. I dare not even imagine what will happen if any of our member countries begin to feel deprived of energy and we begin to exhaust our reserves. That is one of the biggest dangers ahead of us.

We say that energy supplies should not be used as a political tool to put pressure on countries, but Russian colleagues will rightly say, “What do you want? We have only increased gas prices to Ukraine or oil prices to Belarus according to the market. What is wrong with that?” That is a good point. However, I draw to their attention the perception that the energy prices previously applied to Ukraine and Belarus were political prices, which enabled Russia, Gazprom or whoever is behind Gazprom to use energy prices. There is a lesson to be learned, which is that we need the market price.

Here, I would like to share with you a liberal dilemma. We liberals believe in markets. We believe that competition sets things right in the market, but can we speak about competition when we speak about energy? By and large, western Europe and central and eastern Europe are almost totally dependent on Russia for energy, and Russia can sell almost all of its energy to Europe, so where is the competition? There is no competition. How can we create a situation in which competition, markets and the rule of law can play a bigger role?

All my colleagues have spoken very nicely about alternative supplies. I regret that I have heard some criticism of my country, which has a different policy on alternative energies. The European Union should put much more money into research to find alternative energy supplies. I have a huge dislike of European Union member states taking a unilateral approach to Russia, trying to strike a bargain for a nice price for themselves, without having solidarity with the others. Much more solidarity is needed in Europe – a multilateral approach, as my colleague, Mr Németh said. That is a long way off, but this debate can demonstrate to all of Europe that parliamentarians from Russia and the rest of Europe can have a constructive debate on how to provide security for ourselves and our children.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Eörsi. I call Mr Steenblock.

Mr STEENBLOCK (Germany) warmly thanked the rapporteur for his report. It was right that climate policy and related subjects were being raised as important issues. Mr Ivanov’s speech had emphasised the breadth and significance of the subject. Today, the Assembly was considering just the political aspects of this issue. The Russian Federation had huge energy reserves which it was exploiting not just for money but also in order to extend its political influence. This had been seen in Russia’s interactions with the Ukraine and Belarus over energy policy. Russia’s right to make a profit out of its natural resources was not in dispute, but what was in question was the way in which it negotiated its agreements. Subsidies had had the effect of creating dependency. Russia had nationalised its industries including its energy industries, but this had not led to increased efficiency. Politically Russia had attempted to dominate other countries through its influence over energy networks. It had also tried to exert political influence in other areas – for example, over Moldovan wine. Previous speakers who had stressed the importance of reducing the dependency of energy transporters were right.

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

I call Mr Schneider.

Mr SCHNEIDER (France) said that in 1973, during the Yom Kippur war, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries had decided to quadruple the price of a barrel of oil. That had been the end of cheap energy, and had led to an economic recession that had made European countries aware of their vulnerability. Last winter, the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine, caused by Gazprom’s decision to increase the cost of its exports to the Ukraine, had reinforced Europe’s sense of vulnerability. It was clear that energy policy was being used to achieve political objectives: to reward allies and to punish enemies. This could be seen again in the recent dispute between Belarus and Russia.

Energy blackmail was dependent upon three actions: first, the regulation of production and the fixing of quotas; second, fixing prices to penalise or reward buyer countries; and third, turning the transport of energy into a strategic objective. The strategic significance of energy transport was shown by the decision of terrorists to attack oil pipelines. Energy blackmail had the potential to damage economies.

There were several potential solutions for countries which did not have their own energy supplies. They could limit energy consumption, diversify their sources of supply and seek to improve their relationships with producing countries. The ultimate goal should be for each country to become self-sufficient in energy. Nuclear power could not be ignored in this context – for example, 80% of French energy was produced by nuclear power. This was controversial due to the possible catastrophic consequences of a nuclear power station breaking down. However, France was much less vulnerable than other countries in terms of energy supply.

It was essential for countries to co-ordinate their energy policy to the benefit of all. This goal could be promoted by international agencies. The European Union Green Paper in 2000 and the outcome of the Hampton Court Summit in October 2005 had emphasised the importance of such co-ordination. The European Union would be able to ensure its energy supply through partnership agreements, although this could raise issues around state sovereignty. It was in all countries’ interests for stable and reliable relations to be established between supplier and recipient countries.

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

Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that energy was a key factor in human life which drove economies. Each state needed a supply that was reliable in terms of both quality and quantity. States that had their own energy supplies had an advantage. Moral rules should ensure that energy trading remained fair, and energy should not be used as a blackmail instrument. The fact that Council of Europe states had come into conflict over energy issues should be denounced. There was a need for clear, reciprocal rules over energy trading. That was why it was essential for the energy charter treaty and its protocol to be taken forward urgently. Ways for countries to diminish their energy insecurity included increasing their sources of supply and introducing policies to develop their own resources, especially renewable resources. Renewable resources had the advantages of being indigenous, clean and inexhaustible. Countries could also adopt rational use and energy-saving policies.

It was necessary to boost further the national policies that favoured research into renewable energy sources. Member states were not doing enough at present. People were saying that renewable energy was not competitive enough and that it was too expensive. The authors of the report should be congratulated. It was an important step in the right direction.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Dupraz. I call Ms Vėsaitė.

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – When economic issues are used as political arms, they have an impact on human lives and on human rights. Security of energy supply is becoming one of the most important and sensitive issues for the European economy. I would like to thank the Rapporteur Mr Mihkelson for this timely, comprehensive and informative report, resolution and recommendation.

It is particularly important that Council of Europe member states sign and ratify the energy charter treaty and complete the energy charter protocol on transit if they have not yet done so.

Everybody remembers when energy supplies from Russia to Ukraine were reduced in 2006 and when a similar action cut off the oil supply to Lithuania in the summer of 2006. That has not yet been remedied, with the explanation being that the pipeline needs to be repaired. Everyone will remember the threat to cut off gas and oil supplies to Belarus and subsequently to some EU countries.

Fortunately, agreement was reached but these events gave Europe a good lesson and must encourage us to speed up the design of the new energy strategy and to speak with one voice when dealing with suppliers.

In the resolution, there is no mention of nuclear energy, which is having a sort of renaissance. Nuclear energy is attractive in terms of its impact on the environment. We could decrease CO2 emissions and global warming by expanding nuclear energy, which is attractive also in the context of diversification if nuclear waste is properly managed.

European countries are more and more dependent on traditional energy resources such as oil and gas. Nuclear energy could be a means of decreasing that dependence. Nuclear energy issues could be a good topic for debate by this Assembly to recognise the importance of supporting a further development of nuclear energy.

Market economy principles such as fair competition, transparency and non-discriminatory transit are welcome in the energy sector. We must also speed up the elimination of missing links. This is essential to avoid power cuts or interruptions.

Generally speaking the report, resolution and recommendation include all the urgent issues and deserve to be supported.

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

Mr GEGHAMYAN (Armenia) said that Armenia was suffering constant pressure from Turkey and Azerbaijan. The pipeline being built was going to circumvent Armenia, and its neighbours were using the transit of gas as a means of exerting pressure on Armenia. At the heart was the search for a peaceful settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh area, Armenia was facing an economic blockade. The Council of Europe was washing its hands of this issue, which it had not discussed. The issue had also not been highlighted in the media. This was because Armenia was a small country with no oil and gas. However, its suffering had been recognised by very many important bodies. Armenia’s distress was not inevitable, yet other countries were more concerned with getting resources into Europe. The media was presenting the blockade as a problem of Armenia’s own making. The media was always reporting the problems which Ukraine and Poland were having with the Russian Federation, while ignoring Armenia’s difficulties. It was unjust for energy resources to circumvent a country, but that was exactly what was happening. Many international agreements were being violated.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. May I remind members that we have a sensitive audio system and if they speak as loudly as Mr Geghamyan, they will drown out the interpreter? I am sure that was not what he meant. If we keep a normal tone of voice, we will all be understood. I call Mr Kosachev.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation). – reminded representatives how the idea for the report had arisen. Last January, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine were in the middle of a dispute. The situation was now radically different. The report had taken this into account and was not over-emotional, and focused on the technical aspects. Russia did not use its energy supplies to put pressure on other countries. In the past, it had supplied fuel at subsidised prices to some countries. However, it had now stopped this practice. In 2005, it had placed its relationship with Ukraine on a market footing. It had then planned to do so with other countries.

The Armenian representative was right to say that the media often distorted events. It was known that a Lithuanian company had had business troubles, and it was difficult to get contracts in the Russian Federation. Yet energy should never be used for political purposes. Similarly, politics should never be used to put economic pressure on a country, but it felt like this was what was happening in the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was considering the energy charter treaty as if it were the European Union, rather than discussing human rights or the protocol on the death penalty. He supported the report, but the interests of energy producers had to be taken into account.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kosachev. Given that Russia has been mentioned many times in the debate, I would have liked to give you more time, but I am not allowed to do so. The next speaker is Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that the polarisation between the state and commerce had in many cases led to the dilemma referred to in the report. The European public service provided a third possible solution. Producers and consumers could work with other interests, such as the environmental lobby and long-term investors, in order to maintain the common good. Neither state ownership nor leaving things entirely to the market was appropriate. Switzerland was a liberal and capitalist country, but it nevertheless ran public buses and trains to the remotest valleys. The broadcasting media were also best held between the state and the private sector. If energy was integrated, it might lead to a situation where public services were undermined in the interests of the market. The report did not focus on this third way, but it might be the solution to the dilemma presented in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gross. The next speaker is Mrs Gacek.

Mrs GACEK (Poland). – It is a common courtesy in this Chamber to begin one’s speech with the phrase, “I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report.” In this case, the remark is not made for the sake of politeness. This is one of the most important reports in the Assembly’s recent history. This excellent report addresses a key issue, which has increasingly dominated political debate in Europe in the past year.

When work on the report began in early 2006, there were fears that it would be obsolete by the time that it came to be debated in the plenary session. Those fears have proved unfounded. The Russian-Belarus dispute in January 2007, which led to disruption in crude oil supplies to Poland and Germany, was the latest in a series of energy supply crises to have occurred while the report was being prepared.

Let us be clear: this is a political issue.

The official Russian view that disruption of supplies of gas and oil stem purely from economic or technical reasons must be regarded with caution.

Dear colleagues, let us not get sidetracked. This is not an environmental debate. It is worth pursuing energy-saving measures and investing in renewable sources of energy not only with a view to reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels. However, windmills and solar panels will not solve the problem that we are debating today. Let us not skirt around the issue. What is giving grave cause for concern is how Russia is using its vast energy resources as an instrument of foreign policy. How should Europe respond in the light of Russia’s reluctance to play fair in its energy supply policy or to its refusal to comply with international rules, for example those set down in the energy charter and transit protocol?

The slogan of recent months has been, “Solidarity in energy”. I would argue that solidarity is most evident when nations are in the same boat – when they sink or swim together. Interdependency on energy pipelines, which affects third parties in the case of bilateral disputes, leads to swift action and condemnation by those third parties. Pressure is rapidly brought to bear to resolve disputes. Projects such as the Nordstream Baltic gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany directly, and bypassing what could be viewed as “problematic nations”, weaken the basis for energy solidarity.

Paradoxically, the very crises created by Russia may serve as arguments to sway western European public opinion to put their individual interests above the wider European interest and to conclude bilateral agreements with Russia in the area of energy transmission infrastructure.

Investments in strategic pipelines by one nation in Europe always have an impact on its neighbours. Therefore, such decisions should not be made in isolation. The political and economic consequences of such investments should be assessed at the European level. The rapporteur’s recommendation to formulate guiding policy on the modernisation and construction of infrastructure is therefore of particular importance.

I urge the Assembly to give its support to the report. Furthermore, I urge the Assembly to support the spirit of the original version. It is a well-thought-through document. Numerous amendments would reduce its impact and the message that the Assembly gives today.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Nakashidzé.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – Let me start, as everybody has, by thanking Mr Mihkelson for a balanced, detailed and good report. The question that we are discussing today is high on the European agenda, because Europe, like the rest of the world, is facing an increasing need for energy supplies. Energy stability has become a core factor for the economy of any country, and I am certain that Europe should stay alert and pay more attention to safeguarding its stability.

It is well known that the political forecast is that the new order in the 21st century will be dominated by the war over resources. It goes without saying that the country that manages to win the fight for the leading role in the energy resources and distribution market may feel free to determine political developments and the rules of the game. Any monopoly in the energy sector may result in artificial increases in gas and oil prices and become a tool for political manipulations.

My country has already had a bad experience of being energy dependent on a single source, and unfortunately any European country might find itself in a similar position one day if certain steps are not taken. The first of those steps should be the introduction of more transparency in pricing policies. That is crucial, because recent events have clearly shown that political blackmail can become a tool in price negotiations. We are fully aware that prices in the energy sector should be based on market economy principles and should be defined on the basis of the same pricing scheme. As Mr Kosachev said, Russia is playing the game of the free market and playing by the principles of the market. In our region, some countries are paying three times less than Georgia is paying.

The pricing scheme should take into account transportation expenses and the supply curve, which is not the case at present. Many leading analysts speak about possible threats to energy stability which stem from the monopoly on supplies. Undoubtedly, Russia plays a major role in the global energy sector. The Federation’s powerful economic means, absorbing more and more energy routes in the Eurasian region, can be activated for political manipulation at any time. However, it is possible to minimise this threat through the introduction of a free market economy and the diversification of energy resources and rules. By the way, the problem of diversification is artificially created, because there were attempts to eradicate all possibility of transporting gas to Europe by alternative routes. However, it is very important to diversify not only the supply but the routes. Georgia is trying to avoid energy dependency and we are very grateful to Azerbaijan in helping us to do that.

We believe that the establishment of a common strategy for ensuring energy security is of vital importance. It is essential that that strategy is aimed at creating an energy policy that will be more transparent, competitive and devoid of purely political interests.

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

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) thanked Mr Mihkelson for the intricate resolution that he had found in this important and timely document. The events described in the report were actually the result of the restructuring of the energy market. Transition was not easy in a time of high energy prices. In 1998, prices were low and transition would have been much easier, but now it was much more problematic. Energy suppliers were always at a disadvantage: at times of low prices their income dropped; at times of high prices they were perceived as using political pressure.

The Russian Federation’s priority was to develop market relations with all parties. Political pressure on energy suppliers suggested they should not reap market benefits, and it was important to distinguish between energy transit and energy prices. Russia was trying to develop an energy dialogue and pan-European policies to liberalise and integrate markets. Integration of the Russian and European energy markets was the only sustainable solution. Co-ordination between European and Russian policies was always the priority.

The report called for diversification of supply and new transport routes, but these would both require new investment in infrastructure. If energy-using countries wished to maintain their level of supply then such investment would result in higher prices. A better solution would be to allocate these resources to renewable energy. Only concerted action would bring benefits for all Council of Europe countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. As far as I can see, Mr Van den Brande is not among us, unless he is lurking somewhere. He is not lurking, so I call Mrs Oskina.

Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) said that she was one of a minority who did not support this report. It was unclear what was meant by its title, as no definition of political pressure was included in it. There had been no attempt to change government regimes through energy policy. There was no reference in the report to general political pressure, and as it stated that low prices were an economic issue and therefore could not be a matter of political pressure.

The rapporteur had criticised price fixing. Prices had increased and there were variations between countries, because gas was not a global market; more than 95% of gas was sold on long-term contract and prices were also affected by the liquified natural gas market. Therefore, the gas and oil markets should not be directly compared. The United Kingdom energy market was often cited as very competitive, but even here gas prices had increased from $93 in 2003 to $250 at present. Energy markets were determined by global factors and therefore a single country could not have much impact.

The European Union model of market liberalisation had not always brought positive results in the energy sector, for instance in terms of supply problems and power cuts. This report mixed political and economic components. The Council of Europe should not become mixed up in European Union business. She was certain that the Assembly would vote for this resolution as a way to put pressure on the Russian Federation to ratify the energy charter treaty. This was not, however, a Council of Europe matter.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Shybko is not here, so I call Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – We have a long list of speakers today and several amendments have been tabled – not because the topic covered by the report has not been elaborated on well, but because the report is very important. I saw how long and how hard Marko worked on his report and I congratulate him.

Of course, energy supplies should not be used as an instrument of political pressure, but we should not be naïve. Many political leaders in today’s Russia, even at the very top, did their scientific work and theses on so-called strategic planning and natural resources. I would like to emphasise a wider theoretical problem. The question is, why in countries that are rich with natural resources are there so many difficulties with the protection of human rights and democratic development in general?

Of course, I am not speaking about Norway, where democracy existed before oil was exploited, but contemporary political scientists such as Fareed Zakaria are telling us a simple truth: money that comes too easy makes governments lazy over implementing necessary reforms and the free market economy.

When people do not have economic freedom, most probably they do not have freedom at all. Sometimes, they have only very old-fashioned imperialistic ideas. We must be very careful with expressions such as “sovereign democracy” or “managed democracy”, which sometimes are used in certain countries. I opened the “Index of Economic Freedom”, which is a product of the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, to check how the main producers and transmitters of oil and gas are ranked. These are some of the rankings: Georgia, 35; Moldova, 81; Azerbaijan, 107; Russia, 120; and, the saddest ranking, Ukraine, 125.

There are no data for Belarus, which of course is not free, and all the new members of the European Union are relatively well placed.

Economic freedom is only one side of the coin. We must avoid less free countries using gas and oil to try to destroy the efforts of their neighbours to build up freedom and democracy.

During this part-session, once again we have not debated the tensions between Russia and Georgia. One of the main tasks of Europe today must be to assist countries such as Georgia and Moldova in their efforts to build up democracy and to avoid unfair economic and political pressure.

Europe needs success stories. And, last but not least, we also need a strong common energy strategy so as to have as many alternatives as possible.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Herkel. I call Mr Bokeria.

Mr BOKERIA (Georgia). – Most of the points that I wanted to make about this excellent report have been made by various colleagues, particularly Mr Németh and Mr Eörsi. We must all support the report, which sounds an alarm for all European countries. It is a positive development that there is now awareness of the growing challenge to all Council of Europe and EU member states, but time is short. An important message in the report is that European countries must act swiftly to avoid crises such as we have seen with Ukraine and Georgia, and now with the Dzujba pipeline in Belarus. It is clear to everyone that these problems will not go away if we do not act.

Many people have mentioned the market price of gas, but most of us know that there is no such thing. One conclusion based on the report and our experience is that we must at least do our best to move the situation as close as possible to that of the market. We can choose what to do, and the experience of my country best shows that. We were put under enormous political and economic pressure until we became dependent on only one supplier, as my colleagues have described. That is not only a price issue, as in the case of Lithuania, but one of mysterious accidents during the winter which are not investigated. That sort of thing puts countries in a difficult position because if they have only one supplier anything can happen, and that creates fear.

The way out is to have alternative supply routes, but again I say that the issue is not only one of price. The trouble that we have seen in the past few years has not only to do with Gazprom setting prices according to its political sympathies; it has used political muscle against countries that have tried to create alternative routes. Again, my country is a good example. Azerbaijan, Georgia’s neighbour, has been put under serious pressure because it provided Georgia with an alternative route. We are lucky, and extremely grateful, that Azerbaijan did not bow to that pressure. However, we cannot afford to count on the political courage and integrity of different leaders.

Europe must do its best to invest politically and financially in the creation of alternative routes. Of course, alternative and renewable energy sources are a great solution, but they are a partial one. Nuclear energy is also a solution, but without alternative routes we will all be in trouble. Mr Németh mentioned the Nabucco project, which is crucial, but we should bear it in mind that it should be connected to Caspian energy sources through Azerbaijan and the trans-Caspian pipeline, otherwise there will be no alternative route.

I congratulate Mr Mihkelson, and I call on all colleagues to support the resolution. We should do our best to keep this issue at the top of the agenda for all European bureaucrats and politicians because time is short and we must act swiftly to avoid political complication. When we have alternatives, the relationship with Gazprom and the Russian Federation will be much more civilised and harmonious. The report is not an anti-Russian document; it is pro-European. It is a call for Europe to act quickly to resolve its current problems.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Bokeria. I call Mrs Narochnitskaya.

Mrs NAROCHNITSKAYA (Russian Federation) said that she had observed the debate with growing disappointment. People had arrived with fixed views, and no facts, debate, or exposure to other points of view would change them. Whatever subject was under discussion, many members of the Council of Europe chose to look the other way rather than engage in meaningful debate. Members seemed to be reflecting the current climate of relations between their own countries and Russia. She had hoped to hear more independent views. The case of Khodorkovsky, for example, seemed to have become about defence of democracy rather than the non-payment of taxes.

Speakers in the debate had said that they wanted to internationalise energy supplies by building new pipelines out of Russia and selling Russia’s resources. Russia had been supplying energy for the last 30 or 40 years and had never failed to fulfil its commitments. It would certainly be desirable to reduce the number of middle-men in the energy industry and to establish new routes for the transport of energy. This was also the view of the Government of the Russian Federation. The issue of energy should be discussed outside politics.

It was dangerous for any country to depend on a single supplier of energy. Russia was not afraid of competition and was looking to new markets in Asia and the Far East. Discussions in the Council of Europe seemed to reflect decisions taken by political parties in Brussels which were rolled out by members who were effectively Brussels’ clones in the Assembly. Europe’s vulnerability in terms of energy supply was a problem, but energy issues should be dealt with outside politics.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Narochnitskaya. Mr Vrettos, Mrs Papadimitriou and Mr Pozzo di Borgo are absent, so I call Ms Pashayeva in place of Mr Seyidov.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – I thank the rapporteur for his comprehensive report. Europe is seriously concerned about rapidly growing energy demand. Today, we are discussing the unacceptability of using energy resources as a tool of political pressure and the importance of eradicating this problem. If Europe does not take significant steps in a search for alternative sources and routes, it will find itself in a more complicated situation in 20 years.

It is only competition for alternative sources and routes that can diminish the use of energy resources as a tool of political pressure.

      In 1994, despite strong pressure, Azerbaijan signed an agreement with western companies on the development of oil and gas fields. For the first time, Azerbaijan brought its oil from the Caspian to the world market through the Baku-Supsa and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipelines. Kazakhstan, which holds huge oil resources, is joining the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. That will create a new and serious alternative route for Europe. The volume of Azerbaijani and Kazakhstani oil running through the pipeline will increase annually.

      Azerbaijan will soon start exporting its gas to the European markets via the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipeline. That is important as an alternative source for Europe, which is concerned about gas dependence. If Turkmenistan joins the pipeline through the trans-Caspian project, it will contribute significantly to easing Europe’s problem regarding gas dependency. That country’s gas represents a large proportion of the world reserves, so bringing it to the European market through the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipeline could represent a significant step for European energy security. If Europe, the Council of Europe and the European Union were to hold talks with Turkmenistan, it could expedite the process. In general, it is important and necessary that co-operation increases between the Council of Europe and Kazakhstan.

      There is another grave reality. European Union documents indicate that the South Caucasus is an important region for European energy security. A part of the European neighbourhood policy reminds me of a time bomb. Some 20% of Azerbaijan’s territories, which hold significant energy resources and are conducting large projects to bring Caspian resources to the European market, are occupied by Armenia. Armenia is not fulfilling its commitments to the Council of Europe and is ignoring Resolution 1416. It has no intention of withdrawing its troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territory. Obviously, Azerbaijan cannot live with part of its territory occupied. We think that the Council of Europe should demand a peaceful resolution to the conflict and impose a pressure mechanism to bring about Armenia’s withdrawal from the occupied Azerbaijani territories.

      We must also consider the territorial integrity of another country in the region: Georgia. That country, like Azerbaijan, has a policy of integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. It hosts part of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipelines. However, it is violated by conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The lack of lasting peace and stability is an important matter affecting any energy security in Europe. The situation should raise serious concerns, and the Council of Europe and the European Union should strengthen their efforts on conflict resolution.

      The position of Azerbaijan is clear: the use of energy resources as a tool of political pressure is unacceptable. I do not agree with Mr Geghamyan’s opinion. Azerbaijan does not use its energy resources as such a tool. My country supported Georgia when it faced significant gas problems. Gas was sold to Georgia for $120 for 1 000 cubic metres, which relieved the Georgian people and saved the economy from a serious crisis. When Ukraine faced an energy crisis, the Azerbaijani authorities demonstrated their political will by providing the necessary assistance to ease the situation.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Ms Pashayeva.

      The last speaker would be Mr Mimica, but I cannot see him.

      I call Mr Linblad.

      Mr LINBLAD (Sweden). – I am surprised that we have reached such a point on the speakers list and that I have the chance to address the Assembly. I congratulate the rapporteur on such an excellent report. We have had a good debate in which we have heard all sorts of opinions. There were some statements with which I could not agree, but very many with which I did agree. This is not the end of a discussion on energy, but the beginning of an awareness in Council of Europe member states that we must have solidarity with each other and impose more of a market economy for energy, as well as more democracy and the rule of law.

      It is strange that some colleagues want pipelines in their countries, while others do not want them at all. However, they seem to use the same arguments. We have heard about political pressure. The use of political pressure is not necessarily an attempt to overthrow or change a government. Political pressure can be used to bring about little things. That applies to not only Russia; it could apply to Azerbaijan or my neighbour, Norway. It is not more than 100 years since the union between Sweden and Norway was broken up, so we never know what can happen. Do you agree, my Norwegian colleagues – I suppose that they are laughing? It should be an important principle that we do not allow political pressure to be brought about through the use of energy supplies.

      I will not use all the time available. I congratulate the Rapporteur and the Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lindblad.

      I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate – I stress that – but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

      I call Mr Mihkelson, the rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.

      Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – I am happy that we have had such a substantial debate this afternoon. I thank colleagues and delegations who have helped me to organise fact-finding missions to several member states, which in turn has helped me to write the report. There are many interesting topics that should be picked up. In the future, I hope that documents, motions, reports and resolutions that work to bring about a truly secure and open energy market in Europe will be part of the agenda of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      Mr Kosachev said that the Russian delegation had been invited to a European Union meeting. Criticism was made of the Energy Charter Treaty. He mentioned that we have never had the chance to debate in the Parliamentary Assembly those documents to which reference was made. I remind him that Resolution 1131, which was adopted in the Hemicycle in 1997, related to the Energy Charter Treaty.

This is not only a European document, as there are 51 signatories from around the world. The report provides a good framework for building a truly open and working energy market.

Mention was made of political influence in preparing the document but we are all politicians and we are drafting political documents. Such documents should have political influence. I hope that colleagues will support the report and will work to influence governments to stop using energy supplies in this way.

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

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) thanked all the participants in the debate, who had enriched the report. A consensus had emerged on the establishment of a think-tank to develop a pan-European energy strategy. It had been agreed that the strategy should be based on certain key principles, including the rule of law, European solidarity, a robust pricing framework, and strong support for renewable energy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Wille does not wish to speak. I call Mr Ateş.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteurs and the secretariat for this excellent report. I also thank all representatives of other committees for their contributions. As we have seen, reliable and secure energy supplies and transportation will be one of the most important international issues in the coming years. The importance of the issue has increased in recent years and it is important that we achieve a common strategy to cope with possible energy shortages.

What should Europe do? First, it should develop a common energy policy, and we must show solidarity. Secondly, Europe needs a common structure of regulatory reform to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of that common strategy. But at the moment Europe lacks that solidarity and a common strategy.

According to the rapporteur, the way to achieve this goal is to put in place a strategy at European level that aims to end bilateral deals based on purely nationalistic interests. That is especially important in terms of future long-term contracts. If we cannot do that, and if we follow our national interests, we may never handle this problem.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That closes the debate.

We now come to the votes on the draft resolution on the report of the Political Affairs Committee on the peril of using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure (Document 11116). Amendments will be taken in the order given in the notice paper.

We start with Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi and Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “In particular, the risk of using energy supplies as an instrument for political pressure needs to be effectively eliminated” with the following words:

“The Assembly therefore welcomes the initiative of Gazprom to supply energy at rates that reflect the working of a free market. As gas prices at present vary greatly per country, it fails to see how supply and demand can justify the differences in the current prices charged. However, it also believes that Gazprom is in a powerful position that needs to be used responsibly, so as to let free market mechanisms exclusively rule the energy sector”.

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 23.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We want to emphasise the factor outlined in the amendment.

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

I call Mr Mihkelson.

Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – I just want to emphasis that the amendment is not in line with the rest of the report.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 23 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 24, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi and Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, add the following sentence:

“The Assembly therefore urges Gazprom to apply a standard pricing scheme for all countries, which would result in equal and fair prices.”

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 24.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The amendment speaks for itself.

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

I call Mr Akhmedov.

Mr AKHMEDOV (Russian Federation). – This is my second day in the Parliamentary Assembly. I wanted to propose some amendments but I shall make a short speech on this issue. Gazprom is an independent legal entity and we cannot force or influence a company in terms of a viable economic issue, profitability. I have been in the gas industry for 24 years and I was in Siberia producing gas for 14 years. I know the cost of gas and where it comes from. I know the cost of transportation and storage. The price of gas has doubled since 2000 and the price of oil has increased by six times. We cannot discuss fair, free and reliable sources of energy –

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Akhmedov, I have been lenient because this is your first contribution, but you must now sit down.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 24 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, second sentence, replace the words “both for supplier and consumer countries”, with the following words:

“producer, supplier and consumer countries”.

I call Mr Ivanov.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that although in many cases energy suppliers were also energy producers, it was possible for the two to be separate. In fact this trend was increasing at the moment.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 25, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi and Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentence:

“This requires member states to open their markets to both national and foreign investors, so as to allow the market to guarantee that sufficient investments are made and negative effects of any irregularities in the performance of one actor are mitigated by other actors.”

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 25.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The amendment seeks to underline the need to create an open market.

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

I call Mr Mihkelson.

Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – I am against the amendment for the same reasons I gave earlier.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 25 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 26, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi and Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, replace the words “the efforts of” with the following words:

“any efforts by its member states that seek to ensure the future energy stability in Europe, such as for instance those of”.

      I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 26.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We believe that any efforts by member states aimed at preserving energy stability should be encouraged.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 26 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 27, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi and Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words “For countries such as Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and several new European Union member states this is a matter of major concern.” with the following words:

“Especially given the dominance of Gazprom on the Russian Federation’s export market, other member states would thus grow to be heavily reliant on a single actor. Diversification of supply routes is therefore imperative. For instance, a pipeline connecting Europe with central Asian suppliers through Turkey, rather than the Russian Federation, would not only diversify the supply routes, but, more importantly, the actors servicing member states’ energy needs. Thus, risks of supply irregularities would be spread.”

I point out that, if this amendment is adopted, Amendments Nos. 8 and 1 will fall. I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 27.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We believe that minimising the threat will minimise dependence on one source. That is the reason why it is in necessary to diversify routes and suppliers of energy.

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

I call Mr Akhmedov.

Mr AKHMEDOV (Russian Federation). – Gas is produced in Siberia, not in Monaco. The cost of production is $65 to $70. The net price is around $75. We sell the gas in inflated US dollars. The gas price will increase year by year, because there is no more gas and the cost of production is going up.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 27 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, last sentence, after the words “Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine”, insert the following word:

“, Belarus”.

      I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that although Belarus was not a member of the Council of Europe, it was still dependent on energy supplies. It was therefore in the same position as other countries and should be added to the list. The events in 2006 had shown it was important to do so.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The Environment Committee is being very generous to non-members by attempting to add Belarus to the text. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mrs Dangutė Mikutienė, Mr Charles Goerens and Mr Tigran Torosyan, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, after the words “and several new European Union member states” insert the following words:

“(Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia)”.

       I call Ms Vėsaitė to support Amendment No. 1.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – We want to expand the list of countries which, for historical reasons, have higher dependence on Russian energy to include the Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Mihkelson.

      Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – The rapporteur is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mrs Gacek.

      Mrs GACEK (Poland). – The countries that are mentioned have been directly affected by disputes with Russia, but those other countries are third parties. We could just as well add Finland and Poland to the list, which should be closed on the four countries that have been directly affected.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, first sentence, after the words “systems for the”, insert the following words:

“transport and”.

      I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 9.

      Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that the serious problems of the last year were mainly due to the monopolisation of transit routes of natural gas. This was in the hands of domestic authorities and should therefore be included.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 28, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, replace the words “The necessary investments in this area should be strongly encouraged by national legislation and policies which are both transparent and fair” with the following words:

“The private market is willing and able to secure the necessary investments. However, for the market to fulfil this role, it is imperative that markets are opened and unified. Moreover, investments from both national and international investors should be welcomed. Private initiatives to invest in LNG facilities in various member states demonstrate how private investment can lead to diversification. More such investments can be ensured by opening and unifying the market”.

       I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 28.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – In order to make markets open and unified, it is necessary to encourage investment in the market.

      THE PRESIDENT. – May I commend you on the brevity of your comments? You are very quick every time. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mrs Gacek.

      Mrs GACEK (Poland). – The amendment mentions liquified natural gas, but we could just as well mention nuclear power and renewables. I think that the amendment is superfluous.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 28 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mrs Dangutė Mikutienė, Mr Charles Goerens and Mr Tigran Torosyan, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9, add the following sentence:

“Steps to encourage oil and gas storage capacity, as well as initiatives to invest in LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) technologies, are also to be welcomed.”

      I call Mrs Vėsaitė to support Amendment No. 2.

      Mrs VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – This is very similar to the previous amendment. In order to diversify energy supply, liquified natural gas is important.

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

      I call Mrs Gacek.

      Mrs GACEK (Poland). – The argument against is the same as that on the previous amendment.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, last sentence, after the words “which reflect”, insert the following words:

“production and transport costs,”

       I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 10.

      Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that the cost involved in energy supply mainly reflected the expense of transport and production. Although supply and demand were also important, there needed to be a reference to transport and production costs for the purposes of accuracy.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 29, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11, add the following sentence:

“An example of such a scheme is provided by the use of oil indices in the absence of a gas market, but price setting through gas competition is recognised to result in the fair price.”

       I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 29.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – As there is no gas market, we believe that gas prices can be established only by the creation of competitiveness.

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

      I call Mr Akhmedov.

      Mr AKHMEDOV (Russian Federation). – There is no gas market in the world. Gas is not oil. Gas prices are crucial for consumers, but we should consider import duties and export duties, because gas is transported through seven countries.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 29 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 30, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly underlines that a viable energy strategy should concern not solely the supply side of the economy, but also the level of demand. It believes that a variety of policy tools ought to be employed in order to stabilise and reduce energy consumption by both private and commercial users. All energy users should be better informed of the implications their energy choices bear for both the environment and the sustainability of energy supplies in the future.”

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 30.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – When we talk about the level of demand we should think about increased transparency in making the choice to reduce energy consumption by private and commercial users, and raising awareness will be very important.

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

I call Mr Akhmedov.

Mr AKHMEDOV (Russian Federation). – The gas formula that was established during Soviet times in 1983 is based on the basket of prices for naphtha, gas oil and oil. The gas price was established nine months ago in relation to the average price for oil. We sell gas in dollars. From next year, we may transfer to euros because our expenditure costs are in dollars.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 30 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi and Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 13, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is concerned about the fact that the Russian Federation’s gas market is heavily monopolised by Gazprom. It believes that it is in the interest of all member states to seek an opening up of the gas transportation system to both domestic and foreign competition, thereby ensuring that sufficient investments will be made in gas production and transportation alike, with a view to fulfilling both domestic needs and export commitments.”

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 31.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – I should like again to stress the importance of Gazprom’s monopoly. The Russian delegation accepted that it is important to de-monopolise gas resources.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said other countries such as Italy, France and Norway had state monopolies, and he wanted the amendment to reflect that fact.

THE PRESIDENT. – It is rather a burden on our meeting if we accept oral sub-amendments of such length, and I do not think that I can allow it. It should have been brought in earlier, Mr Slutsky. You did not give us a text beforehand so it is not a written sub-amendment as some others have been, and if you make an oral one it should be short and snappy so that we can all understand it. If the Chairman does not understand it, nobody will.

I call Mr Akhmedov to speak against the amendment.

Mr AKHMEDOV (Russian Federation). – In relation to Gazprom, 19% of the gas produced in Russia is produced by independent companies. In the past 10 years, the role of Gazprom has been increased in terms of gas and oil production. Gazprom sells to Armenia, Hungary and others. The issues have to be expressed freely and democratically.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 31 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, second sentence, before the word “under-utilised”, insert the following words:

“under-estimated and”.

I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that the under-utilisation of renewable energy stemmed from its under-estimation, especially in central and eastern Europe. The development of these resources needed accurate assessment of their size.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We come to amendment No. 3, tabled by Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mrs Dangutė Mikutienė, Mr Charles Goerens and Mr Tigran Torosyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, replace the words:

“, in a White Paper on renewable energy sources, to increase the share on renewable energy in its total energy consumption to 12% by 2010. That said it would appear unlikely that renewable energy will play a major role in Europe’s energy mix in the near future, on account of high initial investments costs and lack of confidence on the part of investors”

with the following words:

“to increase the share of renewable energy in its total energy consumption to 12% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. The Assembly believes that these targets should serve as benchmarks for all European countries”.

I call Ms Vėsaitė to support Amendment No. 3, which has a written sub-amendment. It is identical to Amendment No. 32, proposed by Mrs Nakashidzé, but because Ms Vėsaitė’s amendment was presented first, I am calling on her to defend it.

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – With this amendment, we would like to establish concrete benchmarks concerning renewables – that is, 12% by 2010, which is universally adopted in Europe, and 20% by 2020.

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

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

Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – The sub-amendment would delete the last sentence of the amendment so as not to set benchmarks for all European countries in this respect.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – This is a benchmark already adopted in the European Union and we considered that it would be good for all Assembly countries to reach for it, despite what Mr Mihkelson says.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – 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.

That is not the case.

I call Mrs Oskina.

Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) said that only 27 of the members of the Council of Europe were also members of the European Union. Russia and other states were not European Union members, and this amendment was intended to bring political pressure to bear.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3, as amended, is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment No. 20 has fallen.

      We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly insists on the importance of improving energy efficiency in European countries. This is vital for transport, the building industry and high energy-consumption products. It is also important to reduce energy losses on energy transport and distribution lines. The Assembly is consequently pleased that the European Commission intends, in its action plan for energy efficiency, to reduce its energy consumption by 20% by 2020.”

      I call Mr Ivanov to support the amendment.

      Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that this amendment dealt with the important issue of energy efficiency. Along with renewable energy, these were the twin pillars of energy independence.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 12 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 33, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is aware that the use of nuclear energy is a sensitive matter for its member states. This should not however prevent member states’ governments from re-examining the potential role of this technology for enhancing energy security on the national and the regional level. The positive results achieved by several member states regarding both safety standards and energy production form an example of this potential.”

       I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 33.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We all know that the use of nuclear energy is a sensitive matter, but we still believe that we should not prevent member state governments from re-examining the potential role of that technology in enhancing energy security at national and regional level.

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

      I call Mr Ivanov.

      Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that the use of nuclear energy had been a sensitive subject since Chernobyl. There were also unresolved issues of nuclear waste management.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 33 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.2, after the words “construction of infrastructure”, insert the following words:

“, improved energy efficiency”.

I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 13.

      Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that he had already expressed his opinion on increasing energy efficiency in European countries.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 13 is adopted.

      I call Ms Vėsaitė to support Amendment No. 4.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – This amendment is in line with Amendment No. 33, which has been adopted, so it can be withdrawn.

      THE PRESIDENT. – That amendment is no longer part of our discussion.

      We come to Amendment No. 34, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.2, insert the following sub-paragraph:

      “to agree on priority areas and implementation timetables for joint projects on energy research, resource development, strategic reserves, energy efficiency, regulatory frameworks, as well as investment in power generation, interconnections between states and network co-ordination facilities;” I

       I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 34.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – It is a universal truth that statements should be backed up by concrete plans. That is why we propose to define priority areas and work out the implementation timetables.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee thinks negatively.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Not in general, I hope, but about the amendment.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 34 is rejected.

      I understand that Mr Foss wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 21.

      We come to Amendment No. 35, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15, add the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly has heard the statements by various member states in which they expressed their concerns about the way that mankind assumes its role of steward of the environment. It appreciates the development of environmentally friendly technologies and believes that member states have a responsibility to future generations to implement these technologies as much as possible.” I

       I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 35.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The amendment concerns the necessity to develop environmentally friendly technologies. When we pursue a comfortable life, we should not forget about the future and damage that may be caused to the environment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Mihkelson wishes to move an oral sub-amendment.

      Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – I support the amendment, but want to make it entirely clear, so I propose deleting the words from “has heard” to the end of the sentence. The amendment would then follow on as set out in 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 mover of the amendment?

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – I am in favour.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 35, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 35, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11116, as amended.

The draft resolution in Document 11116, as amended, is adopted, with 81 votes for, 14 against and 5 abstentions.

The Political Affairs Committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which 14 amendments and 2 sub-amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

We come to Amendment No. 36

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 36.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We believe that the energy security question should be regulated by the principles of the free market, although democracy and the rule of law are very important.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Mihkelson wishes to move an oral sub-amendment.

Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – I entirely support what Mrs Nakashidzé said, but democracy and the rule of law are important so I am against replacing those words. We should instead add the words “free market principles”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Mr Platvoet.

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – In the recommendation, we talk about the two main principles of the Council of Europe, democracy and the rule of law, and I do not think that free market principles should be the third main item of business of the Council of Europe. That has never been written anywhere, and it should not be written in this recommendation.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Walter on a point of order.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – If the sub-amendment is accepted, the amendment will be unintelligible. I agree with it, but it should say “and free market principles”. Having “free market principles” standing alone does not make sense.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. It is of an editorial character, so the change will be made. What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – I am in favour of the oral sub-amendment, as adapted.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey) The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment, as adapted, is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 36, as amended?

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – I hope that everybody is awake now. I repeat that it is very silly, and out of order, to add to these two basic principles of the Council of Europe a third principle to do with the free market. Dear colleagues, all wake up and vote against the amendment.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 36, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.2, after the words “construction of infrastructure”, insert the following words:

“, improved energy efficiency”.

I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulglaria) said that he had already effectively moved this amendment in the course of the debate on the draft resolution, and the Assembly had voted in favour of it. He hoped the Assembly would also support this amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.3, replace the words “a common pan-European-Strategy”, with the following words:

“a pan-European-Strategy to promote a new common policy, speaking with a single voice on energy questions”.

I call Mr Ivanov to support amendment No. 15.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulglaria) said that a common European energy strategy was needed if Europe was to speak with a single voice on energy policy. This was vital if Europe was to safeguard its energy supplies against political influence.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – The amendment is impossible to deliver. The original phraseology of having a pan-European strategy among member states is absolutely correct, but we cannot speak with one voice because we have no mechanism for doing so. There is no single body to speak for the whole of Europe. There is a single body to speak for the whole of the European Union but not for the member states of the Council of Europe. We should stick with the original wording.

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

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.5.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“not to use energy supply as an instrument of political pressure;”

I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulglaria) said that the amendment focused on the topic of the day’s debate. It inserted an appeal to Council of Europe member

states not to use energy supply as an instrument of political pressure.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16 is adopted

We come to Amendment No. 37, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.5.1, add the following sub-paragraph:

“to realise that a sustainable solution for the challenges Europe faces regarding the future of energy cannot be found without limiting consumption levels in their respective countries. To this end, consumers need to be informed about the implications of their individual energy decisions for both the environment and the security of future energy supply;”

      I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 37.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The amendment addresses the importance of raising consumer awareness about the implications of energy decisions for the environment and the security of future energy supply.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 37 is rejected.

      Mr Foss has been thinking about our problems with time and wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 22.

      We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled By Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mrs Dangutė Mikutienė, Mr Charles Goerens and Mr Tigran Torosyan, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.5.4, after the words “market economy principles” insert the following words:

“(fair competition, transparency, non-discriminatory transit)”.

      I call Ms Vėsaitė to support Amendment No. 5.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – The definition of market economy principles is clarified by the words in the amendment.

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

      I call Mrs Oskina.

      Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) said that, as with Mr Platvoet’s earlier suggestions, the amendment would have the effect of replacing the Council of Europe with the European Union, which would look ridiculous.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 38, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 2.5.4, add the following words:

“To this end, a transparent and fair pricing scheme needs to be applied for all consumers. In the absence of a working market, oil indices may be used to reflect supply and demand. Nevertheless, pricing based on an open market is preferable;”

      I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 38.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We want to stress the necessity of fair pricing schemes for all consumers.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 38 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.5.4, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to encourage the use of renewable energy on their national energy markets;”

      I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 17.

      Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 had already been virtually adopted in the body of the draft resolution. He hoped that the Assembly would also support them in this case, as they emphasised the importance of energy efficiency and renewable energy.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 17 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.5.4, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to do more to develop measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency in industry, transport and services;”

      I shall not ask Mr Ivanov to make the same remarks.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 18 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 39, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.5.5, replace the words “their pipeline network” with the following words:

“every aspect of their energy sector. Such access includes access to production, transportation and distribution. These measures guarantee that sufficient investment is made in every aspect of the market”.

      I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 39.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – We should not limit the success of third parties to the pipeline networks only. We should give them access to all aspects of the energy sector.

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

      I call Mrs Oskina.

      Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) said that if the Assembly voted for this amendment it would be taking the first step towards its own abolition and its replacement by the European Parliament.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 39 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 40, tabled by Mrs Nino Nakashidzé, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling and Mr Sergei Ivanov, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.5.5, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to realise the potential role nuclear energy has to play in the European energy mix, as well as the energy need that exists at present and is set to grow in the future, when deciding whether to allow the production of nuclear energy on their territories;”

      I call Mrs Nakashidzé to support Amendment No. 40.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The amendment is a continuation of our argument about the use of nuclear energy.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Østergaard.

      Mr ØSTERGAARD (Denmark). – I am sorry that we have not had the chance for a longer debate on nuclear power. The amendment has been tabled at the last minute. It would be unwise to adopt such an amendment at this stage because introducing such a large subject into the resolution would shift the focus of the report.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 40 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mrs Dangutė Mikutienė, Mr Charles Goerens and Mr Tigran Torosyan, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.5.7, after the words “within the European energy market” add the following words:

“and speed up the elimination of missing links, which are also essential for avoiding power cuts or interruptions: the Power-Link between Lithuania and Poland, connections to off-shore wind power in Northern Europe, an electricity interconnection between France and Spain, and the Nabucco pipeline, bringing gas from Central Asia, the Caspian region and the Middle East to Central Europe”.

      I call Ms Vėsaitė to support Amendment No. 6.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – The amendment speaks for itself.

      THE PRESIDENT. –Mr Mihkelson wishes to move an oral sub-amendment.

      Mr MIHKELSON (Estonia). – Amendment No. 6 is very good, but I would like to cut out any mention of interconnections, given the existence of other interconnections.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – In favour.

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

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 6, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 6, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is aware that securing real competition and establishing a genuine energy market in Europe depend on diversifying imported energy sources, which in turn helps to reduce the danger of energy supply’s being used as an instrument of political pressure. In this connection, the Assembly asks the European Union and the European Investment Bank to promote, and give priority to, European projects which pursue this aim, as was done for the NABUCCO gas pipeline.”

I call Mr Ivanov to support Amendment No. 19.

Mr Ivan Nikolaev IVANOV (Bulgaria) said that establishing a genuine energy market in Europe depended on the diversification of energy sources. The amendment called on the European Union and the European Investment Bank to promote and give priority to projects supporting this aim.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – In favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 19 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11116, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11116, as amended, is adopted with 78 votes for, 17 against and 6 abstentions.

(Mr Schmied, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Jurgens)

6. Debate on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business is the debate on the report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia presented by Mr Colombier and Mr Elo on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of the Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), Document 11117.

The list of speakers closed at 12 noon today: 18 names are on the list and three amendments have been tabled. I remind members of the four-minute limit on speeches and ask them to respect it. I intend to interrupt the list of speakers at 7.20 pm.

I call Mr Colombier, the rapporteur.

Mr COLOMBIER (France) thanked the President and said that Armenia had joined the Council of Europe six years ago. The Council of Europe had now produced its sixth report on the honouring of commitments made by Armenia when it joined. This testified to the attention given by the Council of Europe to this issue. There had been legislative reform in Armenia, including: better separation of powers, an increase in civil rights groups, steps towards an independent judiciary, and improvements in the public prosecutor’s office. However, certain irregularities in the constitutional referendum had tarnished this progress.

Only co-operation between the coalition majority and the opposition would enable implementation. More time was needed to improve the judiciary, eradicate corruption, remove bias from the media, and to increase confidence-building measures. Armenia also had to show progress on making elections pluralist, free and fair. This included media coverage. The real message that the Council of Europe had to get out was that political will and resolve was needed at a high level in order to achieve proper implementation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Elo, the co-rapporteur.

Mr ELO (Finland) said that when Armenia joined the Council of Europe, it had undertaken to renew efforts to settle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh by peaceful means and to exert influence on the Armenians there to reach a settlement pursuant to international law. The Armenians had also undertaken to give up force. Conflict was still the main obstacle to peace and security in the region of the Caucasus. Hostilities began over 10 years ago. It was necessary to agree a basis for sustainable peace and the return of displaced people.

Under Resolution 1416, the ad hoc committee of the Bureau, chaired by Lord Russell-Johnston, would consider this issue in more detail. This ad hoc committee was going to meet with the two delegations concerned on Thursday. The last meeting between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan was held on 28 November in Minsk. Today, the Foreign Affairs Minister was meeting his Azerbaijan counterpart. He would then undertake a regional visit. It was in the interests of both parties to put an end to the conflict and to rule out the use of force. The ad hoc committee of the Bureau would try to take part in negotiations and to promote positive dialogue between the two countries.

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

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – I thank both rapporteurs for their outstanding report.

As I said this afternoon in the Monitoring Committee, I am very positive guy. This report about Armenia shows the success of our monitoring. The support of Council of Europe bodies such as the Venice Commission, the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Group of States against Corruption helps Armenia to fulfil its commitment to make Armenia a country in which human rights are fully respected and where the rule of law is of a high quality. It is obvious that Armenia has taken some steps forward on electoral reform, the judiciary, the media and local democracy, but much remains to be improved. The report goes into detail on such matters, and I shall mention three issues.

First – this is an old song – adopting a law is different from a law that works well. Implementation will therefore be an important issue for the monitoring procedure in the future. Monitoring is not a punishment; it is a sustainable process of advice. We should not lift the monitoring procedure too quickly, as has happened with other countries.

Secondly, the way in which prisoners are treated says much about the civilisation of a country. I was shocked by the information in the report on the situation in prisons, which is sometimes inhuman – there is poor food and no access to adequate medical care. The report contains some strong proposals on that issue.

Thirdly, alternative service has been criticised. The advice is to revise the law to Council of Europe standards. For instance, turns of service should not be longer than the norm, and there should be a truly civilian service. That is important, because Armenia is engaged in a conflict with its neighbour Azerbaijan.

I underline the remarks by the rapporteur, Mr Elo, about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is a good thing that that issue is part of the report. As has been said, it is part of the commitment to the principles of the Council of Europe that Armenia and Azerbaijan do their utmost to solve the problem, which has been described as a “frozen conflict”. That black spot is a strong influence on the bad relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is an obstacle, which is why it should be part of our monitoring procedure.

Commitments to democracy, human rights and the rule of law should be observed. Given such commitments, we can ask Armenia to make a positive and active contribution to end that conflict within international law. As long as that is not the case, it is another argument not to lift the monitoring procedure.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Demirchyan to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr DEMIRCHYAN (Armenia). – We appreciate the work carried out by the rapporteurs.

It is obvious that Armenia has made progress in bringing its legislation into compliance with European standards. A better balance of powers, the right to access to the constitutional court for citizens, the election of the human rights defender by Parliament and other constitutional provisions are in line with European constitutional standards. The adoption and amendment of more than 50 laws is foreseen over a two-year period.

Nevertheless, it is also obvious that simply passing legislation and changing the constitution are not enough for the implementation of democratic reforms and democratisation of society. Constitutional provisions and laws must be brought to life and effectively applied. In order to build a democratic, rule-of-law-based state, it is necessary to establish the tradition of respecting the constitution and the laws.

It is extremely important to achieve democratic reforms through democratic means. The fact that constitutional reform was one of Armenia’s major obligations to the Council of Europe cannot justify the falsification of the results of the constitutional referendum of 2005. A falsified referendum discredits the idea of European integration –

the means are as important as the goals.

Forming authorities through democratic elections is the cornerstone of a democratic state. For the democratic development of Armenia, it is crucial to conduct free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007.

The report notes that not a single election in Armenia since its accession to the Council of Europe has been considered as free and fair. Unfortunately, it is true, but that does not mean that Armenian people are not ready for democratic elections.

The failure of the 2003 elections to meet international standards, as noted by the Council of Europe observers, lay in a lack of political will among the authorities to ensure a fair and honest process. The best electoral code is not a panacea if political will is absent.

As a result of the previous falsified elections, 80% of Armenians, according to Gallup, do not believe in fair elections. In order to create an atmosphere of confidence, the Council of Europe has demanded to hold accountable those responsible for the violations in previous elections, to get the A1+ TV station back on air and to provide a balanced structure of electoral commissions. So far, no measures have been undertaken in this direction. Nobody was brought to justice for the fraud in the previous elections.

In the next few months, the Armenian authorities should take all necessary steps to restore people’s faith in elections and to provide a political climate that will ensure that parliamentary elections in spring 2007 respect European standards.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Alatalu on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr ALATALU (Estonia). – The opinion of the EDG is that the report on the honouring of obligations and commitments presented by our colleagues from France and Finland is very analytical and informative. Six years ago, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated in its Opinion 221 that Armenia is moving towards a democratic and pluralist society in which human rights and the rule of law are respected and that Armenia is willing and able to pursue reforms to bring its entire legislation and practice into conformity with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe. We have already heard and read a lot about renewing and improving legislation and there is no doubt that in that sense Armenia had fulfilled its obligations and commitments made on joining the Council of Europe. That included amending the constitution, which was a very serious work. At the same time, the Armenian legislators worked in permanent and close co-operation with the Venice Commission – a practice that must be hailed.

Nevertheless, Armenia had not yet passed the main exam to confirm that all innovations that were demanded had been implemented, as will be demonstrated during the general elections in May this year. In that sense, we must consider today’s discussion as a preliminary examination where the main question to our Armenian colleagues reads: “The forthcoming elections must comply with European standards for free and fair elections and media coverage of the election campaign, and the elections must be pluralist and unbiased”, as it says on the front page of the report. The wording is serious, because there had been several shortcomings during previous elections.

We know that our Armenian colleagues are aware of this and that additional steps will be taken before the elections – for example, amending the law on radio and television broadcasting, concerning the membership of its committee, which I was told will consist only of experts. That must be considered a positive move in a society where understanding of the role of opposition is in the process of taking root.

The international community, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, monitored the main events in Armenia over all those years. We heavily criticised the elections, so it is strange that the conduct of the constitutional referendum in 2005 was observed only by 14 foreign observers. If we are truly interested in demonstrating that the Council of Europe is trying to help to bring Armenia to democracy and European integration, a greater presence will be required at the forthcoming elections.

The report said that the register of voters should be available on the Internet. As I am a representative of Estonia, I recommend to our Armenian colleagues only that they increasingly use the opportunities presented by the Internet to make laws and rules available. That is the easiest way of improving legislation to combat corruption and to defend human rights. In the name of the EDG, I wish success to our Armenian colleagues in passing this preliminary examination on their elections in May.

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

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the report was balanced, objective and gave a road map for democracy in Armenia. Armenia had fulfilled its commitments in relation to the problems in Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia’s attempts at a settlement had been conducted in co-operation with the Council of Europe, but Armenia was not the only one responsible for the conflict. If reports were to be believed, Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh were meant to follow orders from outside.

It was unfortunate that much was missed out of the negotiating process. As soon as people were held responsible in negotiations, historical enmity raised its ugly head. Specific steps needed to be implemented and international institutions had taken these in hand long ago. There were a number of key barriers to progress such as the use of force and whether to turn away from the arms race or not. There should be no no-go areas in the peace process. There was concern about the recognition of the de facto administration in Nagorno-Karabakh, but life went on there and no one could stop the people from organising their own democratic way of life. Anyone who wanted control over Nagorno-Karabakh would weaken their own negotiating position. No one could convince him that parts of Nagorno-Karabakh were being used as a terrorist base – some 20% of Nagorno-Karabakh was seized by Azerbaijan, but Armenia was doing all it could to develop as a democracy.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – First, I want to make a few remarks about the report. Its quality can be measured by the small number of amendments that have been tabled. Bad reports attract a lot of amendments, good ones only a few or none. So, that shows that this report is good.

The report is realistic, too, so perhaps there is no need to speak more about it. I would like to use my three and a half minutes for general debate. In such reports, I usually read about post-communist, post-Soviet states. They are making progress – “it’s okay, we are happy” – but that progress is slow and the problems are always the same.

Always, countries declare that they are willing to join Europe and to meet European standards, but the reforms are very slow and there is a great deal of political and economic corruption. Also, many solutions are achieved by force.

Today, four people have spoken before me and they all used the word “conflict”. That word is heard frequently in relation to the countries of the region. I am happy that there will not be a long debate because, looking at the list of speakers, I can predict that we would talk and talk and talk about conflict. But what should we do? Do we have the solution or do we always say that we are happy with limited progress, although we are expecting something more?

I think that there is a solution. Countries such as the one we are discussing probably have too much history. They always have historical problems – not only Armenia, but the whole region. Today is mostly based on the past.

The Council of Europe was created for exactly the opposite purpose: to forget the bad, negative past and to create a positive future. So, do not base your life on historical animosities and historical mistakes, or on won or lost wars. To paraphrase the famous German war theoretician, Carl von Clausewitz, “If you are winning the war, you are starting the next war – the war of revenge.” It is not good to win wars. The only solution is to agree on peace and to reconcile.

My problem here – speaking about not only Nagorno-Karabakh, but Armenia as such – is that many things in the region are based on the will to win or to lose. There are winners and losers. People are fighting for mandates in elections, fighting each other, fighting for everything.

My suggestion is to stop. Stop fighting and you will see that there is less conflict. The reforms and all the European norms will be achieved more smoothly.

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

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) thanked the rapporteurs for the content of their report, which was not systematically negative as had been the case in other reports. Armenia was a country with a long tradition but only a short history of democracy. Western countries had had 150 years to develop their democracies. France took 200 years to introduce a mayor for Paris, but no one challenged French democracy. Armenia had been given just 15 years to do the same.

There needed to be a clear definition of the role of opposition parties in Armenia. He had told Armenian colleagues that he believed democratic debate was an asset. The spring election campaign would help the Armenian public to realise this. There were numerous external geo-political influences on Armenia, including the United States, Russia, the Caucasus and Iran. Such influences did not help freedom of thought among Armenia authorities. Azerbaijan’s claim on Nagorno-Karabakh was based on resources rather than democracy. Some western countries were wilfully blind regarding the action of Armenia’s neighbours, and this was implicitly illustrated in their reaction to the recent assassinations of journalists.

The Council of Europe was a standard bearer for democracy and human rights and it should oppose anything that undermined these principles. Instead, it should act to help Armenia escape the influence of others.

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

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – I would like to say that this will be the last of the six resolutions by the Political Affairs Committee to be adopted with regard to Armenia’s obligations and commitments assumed at the moment of accession in 2001. The report is balanced and the resolution is just. It states that Armenia has made many positive changes during the last few years, especially those constitutional reforms made last year. We should bear it in mind that parliamentary and presidential elections are due within a few months.

It is important to encourage this member state to continue on its path of reform. However, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is the main obstacle to stability and long-lasting peace in the region. Paragraph 8 of the draft resolution advocates a positive negotiating climate and fostering dialogue at the parliamentary level, while refraining from interfering in the negotiation process.

Our task is to help the Armenian authorities to continue further along this path and, of course, to pinpoint some shortcomings. However, the latter has been done correctly and in good faith. The resolution must be adopted. The amendments have been tabled in good faith, and they should be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Aligrudić. I call Mr Torosyan.

Mr TOROSYAN (Armenia). – I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Mikko Elo and Mr Georges Colombier, who have done an overwhelming amount of work and presented to the Assembly a highly professional and extremely useful report and draft resolution.

Today, we have a good opportunity within the framework of the report to summarise the road that my country has travelled since we became members. In 2004, the Council passed resolution 1405 and Armenia has unconditionally ratified all conventions.

The previous report pointed out significant progress in harmonising the Armenian legislature with Council of Europe standards. However, there was a serious impediment to bigger achievements in the limitations posed by the constitution. A year ago, thanks to constitutional reform, we managed to overcome that obstacle and, as is reflected in the draft resolution, Armenia today has a constitution that fully complies with European standards. That has exceptional significance for the development of democracy in Armenia, and I would like once again to express my gratitude to the Council of Europe and particularly to the Venice Commission for its full support and excellent co-operation.

As a result of the constitutional amendments, our parliament will adopt 51 laws in two years’ time. During the last year, 27 laws have already been adopted. Thanks to those improvements, our citizens have gained the opportunity to appeal to the constitutional court, and decisions have been made in more than a dozen cases, as against eight in the last decade. It is very important that parliamentary opposition has also gained a right of appeal to the constitutional court since the number of required signatures has been considerably reduced. An important indictor that confirms democratic progress is the fact that in six months the opposition has had two positive outcomes to appeals in the constitutional court.

This year, we will conclude the process of harmonising our legislature with European standards. We will have no more obstacles to prevent us fully honouring our obligations to the Council of Europe, although it is clear that the fulfilment of obligations is not limited to the adoption of laws. Unfortunately, since we became members of the Council of Europe two elections were evaluated as not fully complying with European standards. However, I believe that the significantly improved electoral code and amended constitution are an excellent foundation for achieving the necessary political will so that the upcoming parliamentary elections fully comply with international standards. We can and must do that for the sake of the future of our country and to achieve the high title of being a member of the European family.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Torosyan. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report.

The rapporteurs have two minutes each. I call Mr Colombier.

Mr COLOMBIER (France) said that there was no question of suspending monitoring in Armenia as had been suggested by several speakers in the debate. Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Council of Europe needed to be present in sufficient numbers to ensure that the elections on 10 May took place in good conditions. Peace and reconciliation work was important, and it was essential that the population of Armenia participated in such work and turned out to vote on 10 May.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Colombier. I call Mr Elo.

Mr ELO (Finland). – I thank all those who have participated in the debate. I also thank my co-rapporteur, Mr Colombier. Last but not least, I want to thank the secretariat of the Monitoring Committee, especially Mrs Chatzivassiliou. I wish our Armenian colleagues all success in developing their country and putting it on the road to democracy and human rights.

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

I call the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said he wished to thank the two rapporteurs for their careful and detailed work, and the secretariat for the contribution they had made.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to the votes on the draft resolution on the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Members States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia (Document 11117). Three amendments have been tabled.

We start with Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Tigran Torosyan, Mr Victor Kolesnikov, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Lord Tomlinson, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Göran Lindblad and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4.2.1, replace the second and the third sentences with the following sentence:

“The Assembly expects that further amendments to the Electoral Code drafted in close co-operation with the Venice Commission and adopted at the end of December 2006 will create a good basis for the organization of the forthcoming elections.”

I call Mr Torosyan to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr TOROSYAN (Armenia) said that the draft resolution mentioned the Armenian Parliament, and it was appropriate to make reference to the changes in the electoral code that had recently taken place.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone with to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to amendment No. 2, tabled By Mr Tigran Torosyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Ms Birutė Vėsaitė and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.3, replace the words “currently undergoing an expert appraisal by the Council of Europe, which should be debated in parliament before the end of 2006” with the following words:

“on which the Council of Europe has given its expert opinion and which was adopted by the National Assembly in first reading at the end of December 2006”.

I call Mr Torosyan to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr. TOROSYAN (Armenia) said that this amendment was similar to the first amendment. At the end of December 2006, the Armenian Parliament had adopted the law in question, and it would be appropriate to reflect this in the resolution.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No.3, tabled by Mr Tigran Torosyan, Mr Victor Kolesnikov, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Ms Birutė Vėsaitė and Mr Grigori Margaryan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.5, delete the word “international”.

I call Mr Torosyan to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr TOROSYAN (Armenia) said that the reference in paragraph 5.5 of the draft resolution to the report by the Group of States Against Corruption on Armenia was factually incorrect and should therefore be removed.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11117, as amended.

The draft resolution in Document 11117, as amended, is adopted, with 31 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

I thank the committee, the rapporteurs and the Secretariat.

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

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

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 7.35 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Organisation of debates

3.       Votes on the draft resolution on child victims

Amendments Nos. 3, 11, 7, 12, 13, 18, 21 to 24, 2, 25 and 29 some amended, adopted; oral amendment adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Amendments 31, 37 and 39 as amended adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

4.       Meeting between the President of the Assembly and chairpersons of national delegations

5.       Debate on the peril of using energy supply as an instrument of political pressure

Presentation by Mr Mihkelson of the report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 11116)

Presentation by Mr Wille of the opinion of Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (Doc. 11132)

Presentation by Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov of the opinion of the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (Doc. 1139)

Speakers:

Baroness Hooper (United Kingdom)

Mr Jacobsen (Norway)

Mr Dzembritzki (Germany)

Mr Németh (Hungary)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Steenblock (Germany)

Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)

Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mrs Gacek (Poland)

Mrs Nakashidzé (Georgia)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mrs Oskina (Russian Federation)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Bokeria (Georgia)

Mrs Narochnitskaya (Russian Federation)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

Replies:

Mr Mihkelson (Estonia)

Mr Ivan Nikolaev Ivanov (Bulgaria)

Mr Ateş (Turkey)

Amendments Nos. 7, 25, 26, 8, 9, 10, 31, 11, 3as amended, 12, 33, 13 and 35 as amended adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Amendments Nos. 36 as amended, 14 to 16, 5, 17, 18, 6 as amended and 19 adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

6.       Debate on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia

Presentation by Mr Colombier and Mr Elo of the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member State of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) (Doc. 11117)

      Speakers:

Mr Platvoet (Netherlands)

Mr Demirchyan (Armenia)

Mr Alatalu (Esotnia)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Mr Aligrudić (Serbia)

Mr Torosyan (Armenia)

Replies:

Mr Colombier (France)

Mr Elo (Finland)

Mr Lintner (Germany)

Amendments 1 to 3 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

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