2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-seventh Sitting

Friday 27 June 2008 at 10 a.m.

Link to the voting results

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 Gross, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10 a.m.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minute of proceedings

      THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Sittings have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

      The minutes are agreed to.

2. Examination of credentials

      THE PRESIDENT. – The first business this morning is the examination of credentials of new members submitted in accordance with Rule 6.

      The names of the representatives and substitutes are in Document 11645, Addendum 2. If no credentials are contested, the credentials will be ratified.

      Are any credentials contested?

      The credentials are ratified.

3. Changes in the membership of committees

      THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2008) 5 Addendum 4.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      The changes are agreed to.

4. Written declaration

      THE PRESIDENT. – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration, No. 412, “Reducing visa fees for Belarusian citizens”, Document 11669, which has been signed by 37 members, has been tabled.

      Any Representative or Substitute may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1983. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.

5. Preventing the first form of violence against children: abandonment at birth

      THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this morning is the debate on preventing the first form of violence against children: abandonment at birth, Document 11538, presented by Mr Michael Hancock, rapporteur, on behalf of the Social Health and Family Affairs Committee.

      I remind the Assembly that speaking time in debates today is five minutes.

      I call Mr Hancock, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – This must be a strange experience for members, but I was the last speaker last night and the first speaker this morning. It is not a normal occurrence here and it probably will not happen again. I apologise if people are getting bored by what I have to say.

      I am delighted that the report is before the Assembly. It was due to go before the Standing Committee in Stockholm, but unfortunately I could not get there, and I am grateful to the President, who was willing to allow it to be transferred here because the issue itself, if not my comments, lets the Assembly get a real feel for a crucial matter affecting children.

      All of us who have been lucky enough to have children cannot, I am sure, comprehend what it must be like when a child is born and a mother – or for that matter a mother and a father – finds that, for many reasons, she cannot cope with that child and gives the child away or abandons it. For most of us, it is unthinkable to consider what we would do in that circumstance, because for most human beings it is an impossible situation to put yourself in, even hypothetically.

      The real sadness is that, right across Europe, in all member states, near enough every day, one child – in some instances, more than one child – will be abandoned. Some will be abandoned in buses or trains; some will be left in the safety of a hospital or abandoned to friends and neighbours in the hope that the child will have a better life than the mother, or for that matter the mother and father, can ever hope to give it.

      Sadly, however, many of those children – in some instances, but a few hours old – are abandoned in places such as dustbins or left on doorsteps, in cold, wet, damp locations. They have little or no chance of surviving. If there is abuse, it is what makes those circumstances happen. The first form of abuse for any child is to be simply abandoned, just after birth. The report tries to deal with the issues that that raises.

      Some of us were privileged to hear that very compassionate and caring nun who gave evidence to the committee in Berlin. While she spoke in the Bundestag, the overhead projector displayed a picture on all four sides of the room of the very first child that she had cared for – a foundling – who had been abandoned outside the hospital where she worked. She then put into place a system whereby children could be safely left and parents could remain anonymous while leaving their baby in a safe haven. She produces literature in many languages, and the mother is allowed to reconsider her situation over a period of time. The nun’s organisation will take care of the baby, raise it and keep it in good health while giving the mother advice on where she can go for help or where she can get mediation between herself and her partner. Most importantly, the mother is given the chance to think again.

      I believe, as I am sure most of us do, that to be brought up in a loving and caring environment, whether it is with one parent or two, where it has the support of siblings or grandparents, is the best situation for any child.

Sadly, too many children in all our countries lack that most precious ingredient, someone to cherish them and look after them. The report tries to address the issue of what can be done. There is no miracle cure; children will continue to be abandoned. However, if member states take membership of this Organisation seriously, they should do something about the contents of this report. They should want to establish the true facts of what is happening in their country. There should be no excuse for politicians – whether they are from the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, or Spain – saying that they do not know the size of the problem. That cannot be excused in any of us. The report begs us to start that process of realising that there is no excuse for doing nothing.

      The report is really a plea. The rule of law means nothing if the human rights of the most vulnerable people in our society – newborn children – cannot be protected. If we in the Council of Europe cannot face the reality or the horror of the issue, and instead nonsensically do not do anything about abandoned children, we do not deserve to be here and do not deserve to be elected, and all our nations should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It is an indictment of all of us who claim to live in a civilised society – we play a significant part in making the rules of that society – that for far too long the issue of children, like the issue of women, has been pushed further and further down the agenda. We all claim to want the issue to be higher up the agenda, but when resources are short, the first thing to be done away with is spending on caring for people. Once again, that is an indictment not only of the poor countries in Europe, but of the richest countries, which could do much more. Indeed, they could do more to help other countries, too.

      I want people to understand what the report is trying to say. It tries to do three things. The first is to raise awareness. The second is to protect the interests of the child; it is controversial, but every child has a right to know where they came from, who their parents were, what risk of genetic illness they face, and many other associated things. They have the right to try to find their parents, if they choose to do so. Thirdly, any child, born in any hour of any day in any week, has a right to live and to be given a decent chance to fulfil their potential.

      Abandoned children should not be locked away in institutions, only to become institutionalised and drift from one institution to another until they reach the age of 16 or 18, depending on the country, when they are simply abandoned in society. The consequences of that are seen all too frequently in every capital city in Europe. The real despair felt on the streets of Europe by people who have no hope is mainly due to the way in which people were treated when they were younger.

I implore all members to take the report seriously. Do not just note it; do something about it. When we meet a year from now, I hope that we will be discussing, with some pride, a report that says that, for abandoned children, things have started to change on our continent. We should not lecture the rest of the world until we can safeguard the weakest among us. When we can do that, there may be some justification for us telling others what they should do but, until then, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. You have five minutes left in which to speak at the end of the debate. I call Mr Schneider, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France) said that the report highlighted the painful phenomenon of the abandonment of children shortly after birth. Abandonment at birth was not a new problem, as there had always been distressed young mothers, but it was shocking that this problem still continued to exist within western Europe. The causes of abandonment have always been the same: poverty, disease, disability and teenage pregnancy all contributed towards a mother’s decision to abandon her child.

      The report outlined the economic, psychological and social factors around this problem, which needed to be recognised and addressed. The report discussed the importance of providing reception centres and housing for new mothers. Foundling wheels, or baby hatches, were becoming more widespread again. Although this was shocking, the use of foundling wheels did at least address the reality of the situation and provided a lesser evil than abandonment or abortion.

      In France, mothers had been granted the right to give birth anonymously which again, although perhaps shocking, gave young mothers the opportunity to have their babies adopted without fear of condemnation or future inquiry. Adoption was always preferable to abortion and the use of refuges; Romania had demonstrated the limitations and problems of using refuges to house abandoned children. It was important to recognise that the adoption process could be corrupted and the problems of child-trafficking had also to be addressed. There was no magic solution to solving the tragedy of abandonment at birth but the report had begun to address many of the economic and social factors involved.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The representative of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mrs Memecan, is not here yet, so I give the floor to Ms Woldseth, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway). – Mr President, first and foremost, on behalf of the EDG Group, I thank Mr Hancock for his report. On my own behalf, I thank him for his enormous engagement with children, especially those who have been stigmatised for one reason or another.

      As the rapporteur also says in the report, the abandonment of new-born babies is a complex issue, because it involves not only the child and its rights, but those of the mother and sometimes the father as well.

      The report sadly shows us that the abandonment of children is still an issue in Europe and that, unfortunately, it probably will be for many years to come. That will not change for as long as we cannot offer young mothers, poor and sick women proper support when they give birth and as long as it is possible for western Europeans to buy new-born babies from eastern Europe – something that results from a lack of new-born babies to adopt in the west. Sadly, trafficking in new-born babies is a problem that will increase, not decrease, unless we act now.

      Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child say that a child has a right to a name and a nationality as soon as it is born, as well as a right to know and to be cared for by his or her parents. That is why I find it difficult to accept that it is possible anonymously to give birth to a child, and for the state to accept this as people do in countries with baby hatches.

      I will not enter into the debate on abortion, because I think that too many feelings and values are involved in that subject to deal with it in such a short contribution. However, I want to say that, if a woman if forced by poverty or health issues to abandon her child at birth, we have not come very far in Europe.

      Two things can help to avoid a child being without an identity when it is born, as the rapporteur pinpoints. First, every mother should be registered if she wants to abandon her child, so that it is possible to trace her if and when the child wants to do so. Secondly, the mother should be able to spend some time with the new-born baby before the child care services put it up for adoption. If the mother is told at that time that it is possible for her to keep the child and to get financial support, that may be just enough to make her keep the child.

      There is a lack of registration of abandoned children. I guess therefore that there is a large but unknown number of abandoned children all over Europe who are excluded from the statistics and are ignored by all. If a young mother willingly gives away her new-born baby for adoption, it will not be registered as abandoned but as being adopted. In my country, the social welfare services have persuaded young girls to give up their babies for adoption because of their lack of money or education, or their young age or health issues. So that is why I think that it is a great idea to register all children at birth free of charge. That will give us a better picture of how big this problem is.

      Last but not least, we must have a transparent procedure for the giving up of new-born babies for national and international adoption.

      Mr President, let me conclude by thanking the rapporteur again for focusing on this important issue. I expect our governments to act quickly to fight against the abandonment of children.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much Ms Woldseth. I call Mrs Stump, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mrs STUMP (Switzerland) said that the Socialist Group welcomed the report. Children were still often abandoned or even killed. There were few reliable statistics on the extent of this, and little information on the conditions in which it happened, or on whether the gender of the child influenced the parents in making their decision. The report recognised that children had the right to grow up in their families, and it called for this right to be guaranteed.

      She underlined the importance of the first two paragraphs of the resolution. Support, including child care, should be provided for pregnant women and then for the families. Finance was often the problem. It was important to have in place measures that would enable a child to grow up with its mother, and measures that would help to ensure that children were not abandoned. There should be information about contraception, and mothers should be able to give birth anonymously.

      The Socialist Group supported the resolutions. Adoption was also a possibility, and there was a market for adoption in Europe. There were families desperate to adopt; there were parents without children, and children without parents. Poor families were sometimes encouraged – for instance by medical staff – to give up children. Not just the rights of the child but the rights of the mother and father should be guaranteed. Rights included duties, and that was why the group had tabled amendments, specifying that fathers should also be involved. All the amendments had been approved unanimously and therefore would not be discussed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mrs Stump. We have until about 11.10 a.m. for those who wish to speak. Does Mr Hancock wish to reply now to those who have spoken on behalf of the groups? That is not the case.

Mrs Memecan is not yet here, so we can continue with the list of speakers. The next speaker on the list is Mrs Curtis-Thomas, but she is not here, so I call Mr Rochebloine.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that concern about the child and the dignity of children was broadly shared across the Assembly, but the reality of life was not as simple as the principles described in the report. The elements of international comparisons in the report testified to that. He asked whether abandonment was logically the first violence, or a basic violence from which others stemmed. The general approach of the report was to support the rights of the child, with abandonment seen as a breach of that. He was not sure whether the rapporteur had seen the logical consequences of this type of reasoning. The rights of children were not an isolated experience, but part of a reciprocity. He did not want to judge people’s conduct, but believed that it was right to start with the social link rather than with the individual. So he had reservations, but the report made the Assembly aware of the trauma of abandonment.

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

      Mrs VOLOZHINSKAYA (Russian Federation) thanked Mr Hancock and the committee, who had brought attention to a complex problem. The phenomenon of abandonment was still with us, although it was incompatible with the maternal instinct. The reasons for it included poverty, lack of information, lack of support and loss of traditional family values.

      In Russia, 2008 had been named the year of the family. This involved improving laws and advocating family values. There was free in-patient help, there was help with abortions, and help with avoiding abortions as well as neo-natal care. There was a federal law giving additional support, entitling the mother to “maternity capital”, which could be used for housing, education of the child or to enhance the mother’s pension fund. The amount was indexed annually for inflation. Family allowances had also been increased. Maternity homes had special sections for those who did not want to, or might not be able to, keep their children. They had housing for six months. There were such homes in a number of cities including Sverdlovsk and St Petersburg. Thus, mothers were able to enjoy maternity, knowing that the state was helping them.

      Both parents had shared responsibilities. Compulsory registration of births helped them, and also enhanced the child’s rights.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Volozhinskaya. I call Mr Béteille.

      Mr BÉTEILLE (France) congratulated Mr Hancock on the moving manner in which he had defended his conclusions. Abandonment of children was a scandal but, as the report said, it would always exist. So it was necessary to adapt legislation to recognise reality, and find the least bad ways of combating it. If the phenomenon was not being recognised, it was not being reduced. For instance, it was now possible in France to give birth anonymously. It was right to ensure that the care of women was started at the beginning of their pregnancies and provide them with a social solution. It was usually young, adolescent women who found themselves in difficult situations, often subject to domestic violence, who felt that they had to give up their children.

      Some progress had been made in France, where legislators had sought to create a framework that served all parties as well as was possible. There were no ideal solutions when trying to deal with this thorny issue. Some progress had been made, for example, with regard to father’s rights. An act approved on 22 January 2002 had been a real milestone in that. The same act also provided for the creation of the national council for access to personal origins. This was very important because the council had set up a system whereby mothers could leave a sealed envelope with personal information, which the child could open should he or she wish to do so later in life. It provided a lifeline for adopted children who, at some point in their life, felt the need to trace their biological origins. So he felt matters were moving in the right direction, although more work remained to be done. He was grateful to Mr Hancock for his work on this report.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Béteille. I call Mr Omelchenko.

      Mr OMELCHENKO (Ukraine) said that he was particularly glad that the rapporteur for this report was a man, because it signalled that men also had a crucial responsibility in relation to their children. A child was not the responsibility of the mother alone. Like most members of the Assembly, he had the joy of being a parent, and even a grandparent. It was clear to him that the subject of abandoned children was, in fact, more important than any discussion about democracy. The demographic trend in Europe was such that in 50 years’ time, there would be very few people to appreciate the values held so dear by members of the Council of Europe.

      Ukraine had signed all conventions to do with the welfare of children, including the Social Charter, but that was not sufficient. It was also important to discuss the reasons why women abandoned their children – poverty, disease, AIDS, drugs and alcohol all obviously played a role. It was particularly important that much more information was provided in schools and universities because the vast majority of abandoned children were born to very young mothers. Young girls should be given plenty of information about the negative impact of having a child too early in life.

      This problem had to be tackled in an integrated manner. It could not be seen in isolation from trafficking in children for either adoption or as a source of organs. The Council of Europe had to engage in the fight against this lucrative business. One also had to appreciate a different link between crime and abandoned children. An army of abandoned children was growing up in orphanages, and many seemed destined for a life of crime.

      In his view, the best way forward would be for every country delegation to go away and gather objective facts in their home countries about the state of affairs with regard to abandoned children. All this information should be handed over to the rapporteur in September so that he could draft a fuller and more detailed resolution than the one before the Assembly today.

      By the way of conclusion, he said that he thought that the key was to remember that life was a gift from God. This gift had to be protected with every means available and the role of the father was essential in this regard.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mrs Caparin. She is not here, so I call Mrs Goryacheva.

      Mrs GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) thanked the committee, the chairman and the rapporteur from the bottom of her heart. She was glad to be a member of a committee which had carried out such important work.

      Human rights started from the moment of birth. What could be worse than the abandonment of a new-born child? Unfortunately, in reality, this was a very significant problem in many countries. In Russia, for example, there were several hundred thousand abandoned children in orphanages. Only 5% of these were children whose parents had died, with the remaining 95% being so-called social orphans.

      The reasons why children were abandoned were well known and had been discussed by previous speakers. Poverty, drugs and crime were key factors, and work had to be done in those areas. An important project in Russia had demonstrated that the problem should also be tackled from other angles. Special wards for mothers who were considering giving up their children at birth had been set up in Russia. The result had been very positive, with 70% of mothers in these wards deciding to keep their new-born babies after all.

      The sad truth was that, immediately after birth, a child could become a commodity that could be traded in a very dirty business, for adoption, organs or other purposes. Particularly problematic was the cross-border, international adoption business, where tens of thousands of dollars could change hands when a child was traded. None of the existing conventions were capable of protecting these children adequately, and a system was needed to monitor children who had been adopted across international borders. For example, there had been cases of Russian children adopted by families in the United States, who had been maltreated and even beaten to death. A system was needed to protect children like those.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much.

That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Hancock, rapporteur, to reply.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – If there is any money left in the Council of Europe, can we do something about the chairs, Mr President? Will you raise that with the Bureau? Perhaps we can do something about the air conditioning, too. [Interruption.] It is always nice to get a clap before speaking, just in case one does not get one at the end, so I am grateful.

      I should like to thank everyone who spoke. The contributions were made with heartfelt emotion and sympathy for the report and I hope that all of us will take away a commitment to do something about it. I shall comment individually on the speeches.

      Mr Schneider’s comments were positive and I am grateful for his support. What he said was worth reading again.

      I agree entirely with Ms Woldseth that trafficking and selling of babies is an obscene act. Turning babies into a commodity and making money out of them is evil. I thank Doris Stump for her helpful amendments, which I am only too pleased to take on board. I thank her, too, for her courtesy in talking to me about her amendments before she tabled them. I am grateful to the committee for unanimously supporting them, because they have undoubtedly improved the report.

      I have to say to our French colleague Mr Rochebloine that this report, like every report, cannot always be right, but I assure him that I have taken seriously the points that he raised. Although he wanted to be helpful, his criticism was wrong and misplaced on this occasion. I accept the legitimacy of what he was saying but I do not believe that it will help the report. His fears are dealt with in the report so, although I thank him for his comments, I assure him that we have taken them seriously.

      I agree entirely with what our Russian colleagues said. Russia is to be congratulated on the way that it has faced up to the problem. It has potentially the biggest problem of all because of the sheer size and nature of the country – its geographical spread, climate and the economic boom in some cities and the decline in others. Our Russian colleagues who spoke really understand the issue and, to his credit, the former President, now the Prime Minister, also has a commitment to children. Four or five years ago, when I was in Russia compiling a report on children in institutions, he made a very sensible suggestion. The Duma had passed laws to improve the situation but Mr Putin, then President, said that he was not prepared to sign the legislation into law until he could guarantee the resources to match the intention. That is a crucial point for all governments to remember; they should not pass laws without the money to implement them. That will simply be seen as broken promises. What the Russians had to say was very helpful and positive.

      I thank our Ukrainian colleague for his comments, and I thank Ukraine generally for the courtesy I was shown during my visit. I was amazingly impressed with what the Ukrainians were trying to do in small pilot projects around the country, with the help of non-governmental organisations. There was real commitment from all political parties in Ukraine to put children on their political agenda as a priority. Ukraine should be rightly proud of that commitment.

I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw in Ukraine. The Ukrainians tried to bring couples together again but, more important, to bring mothers and babies together again, giving them sustained help – funding them and looking after them for a two-year period. Some of the mothers we met were only 14 or 15-year-olds and had given up their children but, because of the support they were able to receive, they had been reunited with their child only three or four months later. They lived in caring communities of six mothers with close support. One of the girls had gone back to school and was hoping to go to university. She was looking after her baby, and I am delighted to say that the baby now has recognition from his father. That was due to the determined efforts of the mother to make something of her life and because Ukrainian society had put in the resources to make that happen. I should like such examples to be followed in many different places. They are small projects but there is much hope arising from them.

      France understands the problem. As Mr Béteille said, there is no end in sight because of all the pressures people face. All that we can do is to try to stop the flow, like the boy who put his finger in the dyke. Slowly, slowly, we may be able to get a result that does us justice.

      When I opened the debate, I said that those of us lucky enough to hold a new-born child in our arms were privileged. We have all been amazingly privileged to see our children grow to be a big strapping man, like my son, or a bright young lady like my daughter. I said that I could not contemplate handing over or abandoning one of my children, but it is easy for me to say that because I am in a privileged position. I was able to support my children, like many members who have spoken in similar terms. The report is about those who do not have that privilege – the people who are not lucky enough to have the resources to cherish their child.

In all instances, I am sure that every mother wants to keep her child with her if it is at all practical or possible. Even in the direst situations, they hold on to their children. One of the most tragic scenes I have ever witnessed was in Ethiopia in 1984. A mother had walked across the desert for 10 days during the worst of the famine on the borders of Eritrea and Ethiopia, carrying her child. She was a young woman in her early 20s and her baby was very weak and sick. The baby had literally drained her mother of all the fluids in her body. For 10 days, the mother had walked across the desert. When she arrived at the aid station where I was privileged to be, the baby was taken from her and was saved. The last words that the mother said to the Ethiopian nurse who was looking after her were, “Will my baby live?” Within minutes of being told that her baby would live, she died. I do not know where that girl is now, but I hope that she always remembers the sacrifice that her mother made to keep her alive.

      We must go the extra mile ourselves to ensure that children in Europe do not have to suffer abandonment, the abuse that that represents and what that abuse can lead to. I question the logic of anyone who says to me that children who have that start in life are not scarred by it. They must be scarred in some way or another. Once they know that they have been abandoned, they have a problem with which they must come to terms. It is a difficult thing for them to find out about if they are a teenager or even older.

      Origins are important. The way in which young mothers are looked after and counselled during pregnancy is important but, most importantly, we must have in place systems whereby the birth of a child is registered so that we have an accurate record, because that is the way to stop trafficking. In addition, all our countries must look very closely at how we treat the issue. We cannot allow babies to be trafficked into our countries. There must be, and has to be, a way of stopping it. There has to be a way of protecting these children. If we do not find it, we do not deserve to be sitting here, and our countries do not deserve to be members of this Assembly.

      I applaud the efforts of the staff involved in producing the report, in particular Christine Meunier, and of all committee members, who were very helpful in putting it together. I thank the delegation secretaries who assisted me with the information. I thank the Assembly for giving me the opportunity once again to put the case for those who do not have a voice here.

      Human rights start when that baby takes that first breath. Let us ensure that we are not participants in taking those rights away, or even threatening them. The right thing to do is to support that human right, and the best way to do that is to take the action that this report demands.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock, for your commitment to this issue.

      Does the chairperson of the committee, Mrs McCafferty, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The rapporteur is a hard act to follow and, frankly, I do not even want to give it a try. He said so eloquently what is in the hearts of everybody in the Chamber. I am delighted that Mr Hancock is a member of my committee, because he has given many years of his life to dealing with issues that relate to the welfare and well-being of children in our member states and, indeed, across the world.

      I want to make one or two points about what happens in my country, the United Kingdom. We have the teenage pregnancy and sexual health strategy, which aims to reduce unwanted pregnancies by ensuring that young people receive good sex and relationship education. It also ensures improved access to sexual and reproductive health services. However, if all that fails, and frankly it often does, a package of support is available for all teenage parents so that problems are addressed early. The support is continued post-birth. There is financial support to meet child care costs and to help parents under the age of 20 who want to return to education or training. There is also accommodation support for all those under 18 who wish to keep their baby and cannot live at home with their parents or live with their partner.

      Nevertheless, even in a rich and relatively sophisticated country such as the UK, the abandonment of children – particularly newborn babies – has always been, and probably always will be, with us. It is a complex issue involving the rights of the child but also the rights of the mother and father. If a mother wishes to give up her baby for adoption, there is a process in my country which involves compulsory discussions while she is pregnant about what she wishes to do. That decision is revisited once the baby is born.

However, that is not the case in many countries. Certainly in Europe, inter-country adoption is sometimes the only way to have a permanent family. That is important. I am sure that we all agree that every child should have the opportunity to develop his or her full potential and that every child should be in a place of safety, and if that is not with the natural parents, then it should be with a foster parent or in an adoptive family, even if that is in another country. Mr Hancock made the point that rich countries could and should do more to encourage that and that all member states should live up to the minimum standards with regards to our obligations towards children. I am delighted to commend the report to the Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs McCafferty, for your words, your report and the work of your committee.

      The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments have been tabled. All six amendments were unanimously agreed by the committee. I understand that the Chairperson of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee therefore wishes to propose to the Assembly that they should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

      Is that so, Mrs McCafferty?

      Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Yes, that is correct.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone object to the adoption of the amendments to the draft resolution? That is not the case.

      The amendments are adopted.

      The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Doris Stump, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Tineke Strik and Ms Ana Blatnik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, after the words “raises the question of access for women”, insert the following words: “and men” and after the words “particularly migrant women”, insert the following words: “and men”.

Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mrs Doris Stump, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Tineke Strik and Ms Ana Blatnik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2., after the words “provide support for pregnant women and young mothers”, insert the following words: “and fathers”.

Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mrs Doris Stump, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Tineke Strik and Ms Ana Blatnik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2., replace the words “for both mother and child” with the following words: “for mother and father as well as for the child”.

      Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mrs Doris Stump, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Tineke Strik and Ms Ana Blatnik, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9.3., add the following words: “to families or single mothers”.

      Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mrs Doris Stump, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Tineke Strik and Ms Ana Blatnik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.3., after the words “sex education”, insert the following words: “for girls and boys”.

      Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mrs Doris Stump, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Tineke Strik and Ms Ana Blatnik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.4., after the words “to vulnerable groups,” insert the following words: “and fathers”.

      THE PRESIDENT. – We shall proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 11538, as amended, is adopted, with 39 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I congratulate the Committee and I thank Mr Hancock.

6. April 2009 part-session

      THE PRESIDENT. – Before we start our next debate, I have an important announcement to make about the April 2009 part-session. The Bureau has had a difficult discussion on the subject, because we had to respect the wishes of the European Parliament. It anticipates holding elections at that time, so its last session before the election will start earlier. We found a date for the part-session, but it conflicted with the NATO summit, which will also be held next April. That will turn Strasbourg and Kehl into a fortress. No one will be able to find a hotel room, and there will be no space to move, so it will not be possible to hold the part-session then.

The Bureau therefore decided today that the spring part-session will start on Monday 27 April and end on Thursday 30 April. On 1 May, in many countries, many people do not work and parliamentarians have to speak to people, so the part-session will last only four days, not five. That should not be interpreted to mean that our Fridays are in danger; the Bureau’s attitude is that we would like colleagues to attend Friday meetings because we need that time to present reports and to discuss them seriously. We do not like to have to make those changes, but we have to respect the interests of the European Parliament and the NATO summit.

      Is that agreed?

      The new dates are agreed to.

      (Mr Aligrudić, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gross.)

7. Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos)

THE PRESIDENT. – The second item of business this morning is the debate on “Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos): preserving the bicultural character of the two Turkish islands as a model for co-operation between Turkey and Greece in the interest of the people concerned”, Document 11629, presented by Mr Andreas Gross, rapporteur, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      I call Mr Gross, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) admitted that, when he had started looking at this issue he did not even know where the two islands of Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos) were. He had had to check the map but upon visiting them had found them to be lovely and beautiful islands. The two islands were the most western islands within the region, and two of the very many islands in the Aegean Sea. They had been inhabited mostly by ethnic Greeks since the beginning of time, while they has been governed over the centuries mostly by Venetian and Ottoman rulers. In 1922, the Lausanne Treaty gave control of the islands to the Turkish Government, but there had always been a strong Greek culture amongst its inhabitants.

      The problem was that the ethnic make-up of the populations had drastically altered over the last 50 years. Around 1960, on the bigger island of Gökçeada (Imbros), there had been around 5 500 inhabitants, but only 250 of these were of Turkish ethnicity or origin; the majority was mostly Greek. Today, the situation had reversed and the majority of the population was of Turkish origin with very few Greeks. On the smaller island of Bozcaada (Tenedos) the balance had always been slightly more even but the situation had begun to reverse. The current population was around 2 000, but only around 25 were of Greek ethnicity or origin.

      The problems involved not the citizenship of the inhabitants but their cultural identities. It was crucial to maintain a bicultural situation, and it was vital to work with local authorities to stop the erosion of the Greek culture. There was a need to keep the inhabitants out of the conflict between the two countries which had exacerbated the situation over the last 50 years. If the problem was not addressed soon, the Greek culture would disappear entirely within the islands. There was a need for special schools for Greek-speaking citizens, to protect the language. There was also a need to protect the houses of the Greek community. On Bozcaada (Tenedos), a number of villages looked as though they were in a war zone and were effectively ghost towns as nobody lived there. It was necessary to renovate properties in these villages and determine clearly and equitably to whom the land belonged.

      A group should be set up to address these problems, and there was goodwill on both the islands to resolve the difficulties. Some problems, such as harbours falling into disrepair, had acted as distractions from this process. However, it was crucial to begin to attract back those citizens who had left and encourage them to return to the islands. This was of interest to both the Turkish and the Greek communities as it would benefit society as a whole to maintain a bilingual culture.

      It was very important that the ex-presidents of both delegations had taken steps to reduce tension between the two countries. Good progress had been made within the last four to five years, and the tone of the report reflected the fact that it was in the interests of both sides to reach mutual agreement. During the process of drafting the resolution, amendments and compromises had been made right up until the last minute in an attempt to reach mutual agreement. There was a need to move away from past preconceptions surrounding this conflict and to do something to help the minority culture. He reiterated the importance of promoting diversity of cultures and reaching compromises, and hoped that action based on this approach would allow good progress to be made in the future.

` THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Hancock, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. You have five minutes.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am speaking today only because I happen to be here on a Friday and the group wanted to make a point on this issue. The point that I want to make on behalf of the group is that I consider there to be a lack of balance in the report. There are islands that the Greeks occupy where the situation is parallel. There should have been an attempt to draw out that fact in the report and to balance the argument.

I have not had time to check out what amendments had been agreed, but the pack of amendments before us today would go a long way to improve the report and to give it the balance that it deserves. I am getting a nod – a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, as the saying goes – that those amendments were agreed in the main. So I hope that that is the case because the amendments would improve the report.

I have every sympathy for the comments made by Mr Gross about what he is trying to achieve in the report, but the Council of Europe has a responsibility to balance the arguments very carefully. It is a contradiction in our society – is it not? – that many conflicts, whether verbal, historical, or physical, take place in some of the most beautiful parts of our continent. What a shame it is that such beautiful, picturesque places, which could be so peaceful in their own right, experience such niggling debates about who owns them, what they are going to be called and who was there first.

When we want to bring people together in Europe, it is sad that we continue to find excuses, such as those relating to names and the protection of ancient culture, that are put up as obstacles to such friendship and togetherness.

Elements of the report suggest that the former leaders of the delegations, as Mr Gross generously mentions, have gone some way to bring the communities together on this issue and that there is a willingness among the people of the islands to accept that the Turkish Prime Minister has made it part of his policy to do more to help to resolve some of the elements that may have led to strife and discord on the islands.

I hope that people will understand that peace and harmony can and should be achieved by dialogue. These beautiful islands should have that opportunity. I also hope that, with the help of the Council of Europe and with people being willing to give a little on each side, Greece and Turkey are able to achieve a result that produces the harmony that we would like to see.

I hope that, at some stage, the Council of Europe will address the issues of other islands that are similarly affected and that it will take on board the comments that, I am sure, members of the Turkish delegation will make.

As I say, I am delighted that members were prepared to take the time and trouble to put together the amendments. Having read the report and the amendments, I think that it is fair to say that the report will read much better with the amendments in place. So I am delighted, if it is true, that they have all been accepted. I thank the Assembly for having the patience to listen to me, I promise you, for the last time this week.

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

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I welcome this report on the two islands – Gökçeada, or Imbros, and Bozcaada, or Tenedos. Of course, there are a lot of similar cases, but I do not agree with the last speaker that the report is therefore not balanced, even though it deals with a specific situation. The report deals with the situation in a good way.

One could argue that this is a minor issue in the context of the whole area of the Council of Europe, but it is certainly not a minor issue for the people and communities concerned. It has a strong symbolic link to Greek-Turkish relations. I have never set foot on these islands – in fact, I have barely seen them from the sea when passing through the Dardanelles – but I take a strong interest in the issue, because the islands are the home of the cultural heritage of the people who live there.

It is very important that we recognise the value of all communities and of their cultural heritage – irrespective of whether they are monocultural, bicultural or multicultural areas. Hence, of course, when a community, cultural group or especially when a cultural minority group disappears, we lose something and the world becomes a poorer place, because we lose our cultural, historical and even geographical diversity.

Island communities tend to have a specific character – we know that very well in Iceland, for instance. Owing to geographical isolation and probably psychological or deep-rooted social and cultural factors, island communities tend to have a strong and noticeably different character from that of other communities. Hence, the bigger the loss if such communities disappear or partly disappear.

I would also like to remind you that sustainable development does not just concern the environment and our duty to deliver to coming generations equal opportunities and environmental possibilities, but it also emphasises the need for both economic and social equilibrium. That must be kept in mind when we are discussing regional development and the right of people to live where they grew up and have their roots.

Of course a human rights factor is also involved in this case. Part of your rights as an individual is to know who you are, where you come from – to know your roots – and to settle, if you so choose, in your traditional community. So I think that the authorities have an important obligation to try to fulfil that right wherever and as much as possible. Of course there are changes. Some of them happen by choice, and some of them are forced upon us. Wherever we can, we should feel obliged to try to correct what went wrong in the past.

We welcome very much the positive developments in Greek-Turkish relations, especially in respect of these two islands, but I think that the suggestions made in the report are very good and we should support them. If we do so, perhaps this will become a model to deal with the situation in other areas. It is always open to us to do that. So we support the report and the recommendations. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I call Mr Sarikas, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SARIKAS (Cyprus). – offered the warmest congratulations and heartfelt thanks to Mr Gross for the report, which showed objectively how things stood for the ethnic minorities on the islands. Whatever message necessary for these two communities to live together on these islands should be sent to them.

      It was terrible to have set out in the report, in black and white, in the report, how much had been destroyed. This was a world heritage site. Unfortunately the majority of this heritage, which had survived for centuries, had been lost. He was glad that the Turkish authorities recognised that what had been done was wrong, and that their approach was to make things better in the future, but words must be matched with deeds. The excessively bureaucratic system had to be modernised, and there had to be reform of those Turkish laws that allowed discrimination according to ethnic origin. He hoped that the heavy hand of the past might be removed, helping Turkey to become a member of the European Union. Protecting minorities was an important part of what Turkey must do to achieve that.

      There were similarities between the situation on Cyprus and that on these two islands. Cyprus had tried to wake up the conscience of the international community. He hoped that the Turkish forces occupying part of Cyprus would also be changed. It was important to understand that cultural heritage was not something to be used in politics as a pawn or hostage. Culture belonged to humanity as a whole. It had lasted for centuries and should be passed on intact to future generations. He thanked the rapporteur for his initiative and hoped that a model for future co-operation could be seen there.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Haibach, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that at first sight one might ask why there should be a report about these two islands, when there were greater, and more worrisome, conflicts elsewhere. He thought that it was justified because of the symbolic character of the islands. Mr Gross’s report showed great sensitivity and tact. It showed how small communities could become victims of larger conflicts. He hoped that a solution would be found. Looking at world conflicts, many people seemed to be proposing only large solutions but in this context, and on this scale, it was important to bear in mind that something had to be done for the men and women concerned and for these people there to realise that their situation was improving.

      He was grateful to the rapporteur and hoped that the compromise achieved could be preserved and not lost, as a result of amendments. It was important that the signal should be given, and to “let the people on the ground do the work” as the English said.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does Mr Gross wish to reply at this stage?

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I am grateful to Mr Haibach for expressing well the sense and logic of the report. We must distance ourselves a little from the history and the big struggle and concentrate on the interests, the faith and the future of the people living on those two islands. As he said and as the report mentions, there are many other islands and many other tensions as well.

For example, I promised the Turkish authorities and people – I already have the green light from the Greek ambassador – to table a motion and visit Kos and Rhodes, two Greek islands with Turkish minorities, which also feel forgotten. So that they do not feel forgotten, I will try to publish a report that shows that there is a similar problem for the other side, so proving that we are not one sided.

I am grateful to Mr Sigfússon for correcting the impression that Mr Hancock wanted to give that the report is not balanced. The Turkish delegation does not agree that the report is not balanced. Mr Mercan himself said that he liked its tone, structure and content. Only someone who has never spoken to the Greek community could claim that the report is not balanced. We should speak with both communities and try to find the middle road, with which they both can identify although it is difficult for them, as Mr Haibach said.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Koç. You have five minutes.

      Mr KOÇ (Turkey). – I read the report by Mr Gross carefully. I have some objections to it, but I hope that, with amendments, we will obtain a more balanced and realistic resolution.

      My objection to the report starts at the very beginning – indeed, it concerns the title of the report. Using the old versions of the names of geographical locations along with current ones is not in line with international practice. In fact, it contradicts the stipulation of the UN Conference on the Standardisation of Geographical Names. If approved, the report will constitute an example of the use of the Turkish version of geographical names in Greece, along with the Greek names, as a legacy of the Ottoman era, and that example may be used in a report to be prepared by the rapporteur, Mr Hunault, about the plight of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace.

      Another important point is the report’s negligence of the principle of parallel rights between Greece and Turkey for minorities. In other words, the balance established between Turkey and Greece in the Lausanne Peace Treaty is not taken into consideration in the report. Instead, it proposes to “extricate Gökçeada and Bozcaada” from the general minority issue. The claim that “this could serve as a litmus test for Turkey to right past wrongs” proves those objections. That is coupled with the wrong interpretation of Article 14 of the Lausanne Peace Treaty, which leads the rapporteur to voice the notion of “local and cultural autonomy”. Some 150 000 members of the Turkish minority are deprived of fundamental rights in an EU country. They are not even allowed to elect their own religious leaders. Can you imagine the situation if religious leaders of non-Muslim minorities were appointed by the Turkish Government?

      I visited Western Thrace and observed the difficulties that members of the Turkish minority encounter in their daily life. Western Thrace is one of the poorest regions in the EU, and has been encouraged to use EU structural funds. The lion’s share of those funds goes to immigrants of Greek Orthodox origin who have settled in the region. The unemployment rate is the highest in Greece, but the Turkish minority is not provided with equal opportunities in minority education. Greece is not even proceeding at a snail’s pace when it comes to the rights of the Turkish minority, who have become an ongoing target for the nationalist Greek press.

      The plight of ethnic Turkish communities is not limited to Western Thrace. As Mr Gross said, there are 4 000 Turkish minority members living in Rhodes and Kos, whose rights are totally denied on the pretext that those islands did not belong to Greece in 1923 when the Lausanne Peace Treaty was signed. I am giving those examples to ask what the principle of reciprocity stands for in our bilateral relations with Greece. We do not understand Greece’s reluctance to hold bilateral discussions on minority issues to alleviate difficulties. Does it simply want to maintain human rights breaches in an EU country?

      Last, but not least, the drafters of the report should collect more information about current legislation in Turkey. The report was drafted on the assumption that Turkish legislation would be restrictive, but that approach makes the draft proposals unimplementable. In conclusion, that is why it is important that the Assembly invite Turkey and Greece to start bilateral negotiations on minority issues.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Türköne.

       Mrs TÜRKÖNE (Turkey). – I fully agree with the previous speaker, Mr Haluk Koç. The report on Gökçeada and Bozcaada has two significant deficiencies, which cast a shadow over its credibility.

      The first is the title of the report. The use of the old version of the names of geographical locations, along with the current ones, is not in line with international practice. When we brought this issue to the attention of our rapporteur, Mr Gross, he pointed out that the original motion referred to the islands with their Greek names, so he insisted on putting the Turkish names first and the Greek names in parenthesis. That approach might have its own internal logic, but I believe that it will have detrimental effects on parliamentary work. I appeal to the Assembly to adopt the same principles when a report on Rodos and İstanköy is prepared.

      The second basic weakness of the report is the lack of understanding of things that have occurred between Greece and Turkey and the way in which they have had a negative influence on the plight of Turkish and Greek minorities in both countries. In fact, the situation in the islands can be compared with the plight of the Turkish minority of about 4 000 in Rodos and İstanköy. They are completely deprived of their minority rights in an EU country. Their existence is based on the premise that those islands did not belong to Greece in 1923 when the Lausanne Peace Treaty was signed. They are deprived of the right to education in their mother tongue, they cannot freely elect religious leaders to hold religious classes or run religious foundations. Denial of their ethnic identity is commonplace.

      Nevertheless, the dialogue and co-operation process launched in 1999 between Turkey and Greece has proved successful in various fields. The mechanisms established within that framework have been functioning efficiently. An important pillar of the dialogue is the issue of minorities. Turkey considers minorities as a bridge of friendship between the two countries, and the issue took up a considerable portion of the recent high-level talks between the two countries. The only way to achieve a concrete solution is for Turkey and Greece to reach mutual understanding. In that respect, we suggest that the report includes a proposal for bilateral negotiations to reach a perpetual solution for the benefit of the respective minorities in both countries.

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

      Mr VRETTOS (Greece). – If we look back at history, we could say many things that are not really worth presenting here, so I want to concentrate on the report.

      When the motion on Imbros and Tenedos was first submitted, the original concept was for a parliamentary initiative that went beyond controversies and diplomatic technicalities. The initial suggestion, as proposed by Mrs Papademetriou and Mr Mercan, was to pave the way for correcting past wrongs in a spirit of good will, with the creation of living conditions that would permit the survival of a decaying community, which consists of only 25 people on Tenedos and 200 on Imbros. The proposal would take advantage of the fact that thousands of people from the two islands’ diaspora wanted to maintain links with their ancestral land and re-establish life on the islands.

      Now, we come to the follow-up. Historical truth is correctly reflected in the report, but its driving force is to address a vital question that is important for us as parliamentarians educated in the great school of democracy that the Council of Europe stands for: do we really want to radiate to our citizens the essence of politics? Do we want to demonstrate that we serve them, or do we only want to continue conflict between powers? We should all support the report and express our wish that the populations of the islands are free and encouraged to develop a new mentality and aspirations to show an enlightened example of bicultural and bireligious co-existence.

      I sincerely thank Mr Gross and congratulate him on his excellent and balanced report. I also thank Mr Schirmer, the Secretary of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee and the two initiators Mrs Papademetriou and Mr Mercan. They all opened a window that will let in light and hope that parliamentary diplomacy can indeed generate practical and efficient solutions to ancient problems.

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

      Mr TÜRKEŞ (Turkey). – As you know, dear colleagues, resolutions can be amended but unfortunately the report and the explanatory memorandum cannot be changed. Paragraph 7 of the report states that “The fate of the inhabitants of the two small islands becomes hostage to the ongoing struggle for influence between ‘nationalist’ political forces and those who are labouring in favour of a decisively ‘European’ orientation of Turkish politics”, and that the inhabitants should be able to live “without worrying about any danger for national security”.

      If the islands were under Greek rule, those comments might be true, but in Turkey, because we have an imperial heritage, we have always enjoyed multiculturalism and religious diversity and that is always respected. I am from the opposition – the so-called nationalistic force – and we have never been in conflict with the ruling political party on those issues. Greece and Turkey are neighbours across the sea, but we have different attitudes in domestic politics. In Greece, political parties enjoy using the Turkish issue, which we never do. Unfortunately, I know there is no solution to that point, but that is why I wanted to comment on it.

      Mr Sarikas from Cyprus said that there had been Turkish occupation of Cyprus. I was surprised that as a parliamentarian from Cyprus he was unaware of the London Agreement and that the Turkish military in Cyprus was a guarantor of that agreement. I am not trying to make a case for argument between Greece and Turkey but I merely comment that in Turkey we have never had a pan-Turkic political party or anything similar, yet in Greece even the Socialist Party includes pan-Hellenic elements.

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

      Mr GRIGNON (France) said that the preservation of memories and identities was the essence of what was being discussed here today. In recognition of their particular historical heritage, Article 14 of the Lausanne Treaty from 1923 had granted a high degree of autonomy to these two islands. The decentralised arrangements, put in place at that time, reflected historical tensions between Greece and Turkey.

      Neither the Parliamentary Assembly nor the Council of Europe had a mandate to authorise the change of status of these two islands, and it was imperative to be objective in the consideration of the situation on the islands.

      The cultural heritage of the islands made co-existence essential. The richness of the heritage, as reflected in the art and architecture of the islands, testified to the reciprocal influences of the two cultures.

      It was no good making Turkey the scapegoat in the debate about the current situation on the two islands. It was the responsibility of the Council of Europe to reach a balanced position that assisted the development of means to reach an accommodation of both cultures in the islands of Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos).

The Council of Europe could now take practical measures which were far from purely rhetorical or hypothetical. The report provided a basis for the Assembly to return to the primary vision of its objective in this area which was to allow the peaceful co-existence of Greek and Turkish populations. It was important for the Council of Europe to propose, and itself take, concrete steps towards improving the situation in the islands of Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos) and he supported Mr Gross in pursuing this mission.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now give the floor to Mrs Benaki.

      Mrs BENAKI (Greece). – I do not want to comment on what our Turkish colleagues have said, but I can reassure the Assembly that the argument used by the religious leaders has no relevance to the truth.

      I want to express our deep thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Gross, for his excellent work. This is the first accurate, realistic and well-founded investigation into the local history of the two islands. It reflects the reality and the exact situation. We also greatly appreciate the contribution of our colleagues Mrs Elsa Papademetriou and Mr Mercan, who worked together and enabled the rapporteur to accomplish this difficult task.

      What has happened between the parties on the two sides of the Aegean is a bitter reality. Past events on the islands covered by the report are described in an astonishingly clear and objective manner. None of the parties involved can forget what has happened, but none of us has the right to stay in the past and close our eyes to the future.

      Today, Turkey has, as we hoped it would, a real European perspective and it has made efforts to adjust its structures to conform to European democratic principles. The resolution gives the Assembly a unique opportunity to initiate a procedure of getting satisfaction where there has been the violation of human rights, and thus re-establishing the destroyed bicultural identity of the islands.

      The resolution and report reflect a vision that will lead, if both sides of the involved communities act carefully, to a unique experiment. Eventually, it will be a big achievement for the Council of Europe – the rebirth of a real bilingual and bicultural society and an example of peaceful coexistence that goes beyond the relations between, or the political situation in, the countries involved.

      The suggested measures are fully balanced and realistic. They also give people living on the islands – although this mainly applies to those of Greek origin who have been compelled to abandon their homes – the opportunity to come back and work together to create a modern, peaceful and democratic society, according to the principles of the Council of Europe, that respects the human rights which have been severely violated.

      I spoke to a delegation from the Greek minority of Imbros and Tenedos who now live all over Europe and who are here watching this debate. They asked me to express on their behalf their gratitude to Mrs Papademetriou and Mr Mercan for the hopes that they have inspired since 2005. They would also like to thank Mr Gross for his excellent work on recording their history, for endorsing their wishes and expectations, and in formulating advanced and practical proposals. Of course, they also thank the Parliamentary Assembly for dealing with the issues.

      Members of the delegation do not expect the Council of Europe to cease monitoring the progress of the measures to be taken under the resolution. They want to thank the Turkish delegation for its productive attitude throughout the process, and to express their will and readiness to work together with the Turkish authorities in making the two islands a model of a modern European Turkey.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Now I give the floor to Mr Kumcuoğlu.

      Mr KUMCUOĞLU (Turkey). – The report is naturally the result of time-consuming hard work. However, I am sorry to point out that it fails to be impartial. It seems that some Europeans cannot see the truth or overcome their temptation to side with Hellenism even though they pretend that they are against every kind of nationalism. As a matter of fact, today, in this very Chamber, some of our colleagues, including the rapporteur, ignored the UN rules about geographical names. I must stress that whatever preference other people might have, we will insist on calling those two islands, and each and every location on them, by their proper Turkish names. We ask others to do the same because international law expects and urges us to do so.

      Furthermore, the report fails to take into account an important fact. The considerable erosion of the population on islands in the Mediterranean basin is not peculiar to those two Turkish islands. In fact, other islands such as the Greek island of Meis, which lies close to the southern shores of our country, have suffered from the same syndrome for quite a long time. The population of that island has also diminished to a few hundred elderly people.

      One important factor behind the erosion of population is the effect of European Union membership because it encourages younger generations to seek their fate in more active economic centres or in the fast growing regions of the Union. If some Europeans leave their prejudices about Turkey and Turks behind, and if the EU determines its policies towards Turkey in a more constructive way, it would help to ease the tension in the region and to solve these problems to a great extent.

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

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Cyprus: representative of the Turkish Cypriot community). – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, before my speech on Gökçeada and Bozcaada, I would like to comment on some of the points made by Mr Sarikas, as I was saddened to hear his remarks. First, according to us, the only occupation in Cyprus is the occupation of the seat of Government of Cyprus since 1963. That is why today I am obliged to appeal to you as the elected representative of the Turkish Cypriot community, and not as an MP of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus.

      As far as cultural heritage in Cyprus is concerned, that heritage, whether in the north or the south, is our common heritage. The Turkish Cypriot authorities are doing their best to preserve that heritage in north Cyprus, with limited financial resources.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, but you should stick to the subject of the report.

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Cyprus: representative of the Turkish Cypriot community). – Yes, I will do that. I underline that the Greek Cypriot side has, until now, rejected all our invitations to co-operate on that issue. We are also upset that Turkish heritage in south Cyprus is not being preserved, and there is deliberate effort on the Greek Cypriot side to erase traces of Turkish culture.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, but you are talking about the cultural heritage of Cyprus, and you should stick to the content of the report.

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Cyprus: representative of the Turkish Cypriot community). – All right. Let me say at the outset of my remarks that although there are a number of points in the report with which I do not agree, I appreciate the considerable effort put into the report by the rapporteur, Mr Gross, and the secretariat. Given that certain points in the report are interlinked with the issue of the right to education – a subject dear to me as an academic – I wish to say a few words on the issue.

      I am a democratically elected parliamentarian, as is every other parliamentarian represented under this roof, and as such, I wish that I had the right to vote, rather than having to limit my contribution to a verbal intervention. What brings me to sympathise with the proposal to open schools for Greek children, if and when they are resettled on Gökçeada and Bozcaada, is recognition of the right to education, which is a fundamental human right. I believe in defending the right to education, because that right, both for individuals and societies – it is a necessity of globalisation. It is one of the tools for spreading European values to future generations.

      The Republican Turkish Party, of which I am a member, and the Turkish Cypriot people have shown the extent of our sensitivity to the issue by leading the way on the opening of primary and secondary schools for the children of the Greek Cypriot minority living on the Karpaz peninsular. I underline the fact that those schools are administered by the Greek Cypriot Ministry of Education. Furthermore, the teachers and the textbooks are provided by the Greek Cypriot side. All that has happened with our approval.

      In that context, I would like to ask the following questions. When will the Greek Cypriot side, which is an EU member state, open a school that will allow Turkish Cypriot children in Limassol to be educated in their mother tongue? When will the Greek Cypriot side, which is a member of the European Union, together with other –

THE PRESIDENT. – Please, you may give examples, but do not broaden up the subject. Please stick to the matter at hand.

Mr ÇAĞLAR (Cyprus: representative of the Turkish Cypriot community). – But I am on the subject. When will the Greek Cypriot side allow students studying in our universities to participate in the Erasmus programme or similar European projects? When will the Turkish Cypriot universities become a party to the Bologna process? I should like to take this opportunity to remind colleagues that, according to the constitution of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus, education matters were to be administered by each community separately in communal chambers.

THE PRESIDENT. – Please, you are taking up too much of your time with an issue that is not related to the matter at hand. That is my objection.

Mr ÇAĞLAR (Cyprus: representative of the Turkish Cypriot community). – At this point, I call upon our Greek Cypriot neighbours. Let us transform our common homeland into an island of science and education. As the Parliamentary Assembly, under the presidency of Mr van der Linden, recommended in 2007, let us make Turkish, which is one of the official languages in Cyprus, an official language of the EU. Let us co-operate and accomplish common projects in our universities to contribute to the building of confidence between our two peoples. Let us work together and find solutions to our common problems.

THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, but your time has expired. I call Mr Çavuşoğlu on a point of order.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – In this Chamber, many colleagues speak on issues other than the ones that they are supposed to discuss, but nobody is stopped. Today, many colleagues have talked about the so-called invasion of Cyprus, and you did not stop them. We have already promised to lift the embargoes on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and to remove the isolation. It is said that we did not keep our promises. This is a kind of embargo and isolation from our colleagues from the Turkish parts. That is not fair.

THE PRESIDENT. – I take your point, Mr Çavuşoğlu, but the problem is that people have to give examples to support what they say. I can understand that, but they should not take the floor to say something that has no connection to the subject under discussion. That is my objection.

I now call Mrs Keleş. You have five minutes.

      Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Before I begin my main speech, I want to make two points. The first concerns names. It is one thing to use two different names for the islands, and another to use only the Greek names. Most of the speakers who have contributed so far have used only the Greek names. That is not a very gentle attitude; we should show respect for the preferences of a sovereign country, which has the right to choose the names for the land under its sovereignty. Secondly, the report gives the wrong impression. Some speakers have talked about that. It wrongly gives the impression that the Lausanne Peace Treaty grants local and cultural autonomy to local inhabitants. Article 12 of the explanatory memorandum refers to Article 14 of the Lausanne Treaty. If you read the treaty carefully, you can easily see that there is nothing of the sort in it.

      I thank the rapporteur, Mr Gross, for coming all the way to Turkey to prepare the report, but he should have stayed longer in Turkey and prepared an objective report. This report cannot be defined as objective. The rapporteur’s exposition was also far from objective, as colleagues will know if they listened to it carefully. Even the short summary of the report accuses Turkey. It refers to the closure of Greek community schools on the island, large-scale expropriations and various forms of harassment, but there is no basis whatever for those claims.

      Within the report, there is a serious misunderstanding that should be corrected. The Greek Orthodox minority population living in Gökçeada and Bozcaada is 200 and 20 respectively. Those people make use of their rights, which include the property rights of Turkish citizens. The gradual decrease in the Greek Orthodox population on the island over the years stems mainly from economic factors. Those people have never been encouraged to leave the islands, whereas the Turkish minority population in western Thrace has decreased as a result of the forced migration policies of Greece.

      According to the historical documents presented at the Lausanne peace conference, the Turkish minority used to constitute 65% of the population, and its land ownership rate was about 84% in western Thrace. Now, the Turkish minority is only 35% of the population, despite a high birth rate. Land ownership has gone down from 84% to 25%. I am just giving examples, so that we can make a comparison. The notorious Article 19 of the Greek citizenship law that was in effect between 1959 and 1998 caused tens of thousands of minority members to lose their Greek citizenship. Deprivation of civil and minority rights, enforcement of restricted zones and some other policies were implemented, affecting the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. With the loss of their Greek citizenship, they were also deprived of EU citizenship. We should talk about that, too, if we want to give a realistic picture of that part of the world.        Gökçeada and Bozcaada should not be excluded from the principle of reciprocity established in the Lausanne Peace Treaty.

In the report, the lack of minority schools is raised as an issue. The members of the Greek minority in Turkey were never denied the right to be educated in their own language. Primary schools of Gökçeada and Bozcaada were closed down due to an insufficient number, or lack, of students. We accept that diversity is a source of richness in a country. Local authorities are therefore trying to preserve the native culture of the islands. There is no restriction on people practising their religion or on their traditions. All churches have been renovated, with one exception, and it will be renovated soon.

      The process of establishing a land registry in Bozcaada was completed in 1994, and work on land registry in Gökçeada has been completed to a large extent. The registration process is carried out within the framework of the civil code. If there is a dispute, the claimant can file a court case. Up to now, in 90% of such cases, the result has been in favour members of the minority.

      The new law on foundations has produced unbelievable changes in respect of foreign foundations and with regard to non-Muslim community foundations. Greek orthodox minority foundations will enjoy all such rights to the fullest extent, despite the plight of Turkish minority foundations in Greece. Minority foundations in Turkey are not confronted by any restrictions or discrimination whatsoever.

      We talk of reciprocity because the Lausanne Peace Treaty is based on a balance between Turkey and Greece, but Greece does not fulfil –

      THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, Mrs Keleş, but your time has expired. You have taken 55 seconds more than you should have taken.

      That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Gross, rapporteur, to reply. You have two minutes.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I would like to thank all the speakers, especially those who tried to understand a little of the other point of view, which is always the most difficult thing to do. Many of you have criticised the names and referred to the United Nations norm, but that is different. This is not a report on the law of Turkey. We do not question the right to have Turkish names in Turkey, but in such a report we should use both names in an attempt at reconciliation. We have put the second name in brackets, which represents a downgrading and a second category referring to history and the other language. We should refer to notions that both groups can understand. A name is not a judicial issue. We are attempting to understand each other.

My second point is that I was criticised for not making a parallel. The Lausanne Treaty includes an exception for these two islands and takes them out of the generality. That is the logic of the Lausanne Treaty, and you should not criticise that because it is the democratic way to do things.

I would like to read the first sentence of article 14 of the Lausanne Treaty, especially to Mrs Keleş – [Interruption.] Please listen. You should be switched not only to transmit but to receive. When you are switched to transmit only, you cannot reach a compromise. No one knows the truth; everyone knows a part of it. Aristotle – a Greek who lived in what is today Turkish territory – said that you need to know the other’s view to come together and to find the truth. You should consider him as a symbol.

The first sentence of Article 14 of the Lausanne Treaty states: “the islands of Imbros and Tenedos” – the Turkish names are not used – “remaining under Turkish sovereignty shall enjoy a special administration organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Muslim population in so far as it concerns local administration and the protection of the person.” The culture and property belongs to the person. That is exactly what we are doing in this report.

I should like to stress something: listen first and do not just speak. The Lausanne Treaty is –

Mr KUMCUOĞLU (Turkey). – Calm down!

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I say to Mr Kumcuoğlu that declining population is a general tendency on other islands. However, when one side of an island’s culture is eroded, we have a problem. We are discussing that problem. That is why you should be open and not shout too quickly –

      THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, Mr Gross, but your time is up.

      Does the chairperson of the committee, Mrs Däubler-Gmelin, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – I am in fact the vice-chairperson.

      On behalf of the committee, I thank the rapporteur for the important work that he has done. The committee welcomes the fact that it has set an example to others and shown how such problems can be tackled to improve the whole picture. The committee supports the work done by the rapporteur and thanks all those who have participated in preparing the report.

      Can I pass my remaining time to the rapporteur?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Yes, you can. I call Mr Gross.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The last point that I want to make is that, historically, it is normal to disagree. The worst thing about violence is that it cannot be forgotten, and that is why people cannot agree about the history of conflicts between nations. In order to overcome such disagreement, which is normal, you must think about the other’s point of view. You must approach one another to find a reconciliation option for these two communities that is in everyone’s interests. That is a basic point: such a reconciliation approach will give us a win-win situation, and both communities will profit at the end of the day. I ask you to realise that fact. We will do that when we pass the resolution with the amendments, which have been based on common ground. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Gross.

      The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which 12 amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.

      The amendments are Nos. 2, 4 to 8, 10 and 12 to the draft resolution are there any objections? That is not the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 8, 10 and 12 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      The amendments are adopted.

      The following amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted:

      Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the title of the draft resolution, after the words “Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos)”, insert the following footnote: “According to the Third UN Conference on the Standardization of the Geographic Names, nation states enjoy the right to name the geographical locations under their sovereignty”.

Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the second sentence with the following sentence: “The small number of inhabitants of the islands would make it possible to address their problems outside of the wider context of Greco-Turkish relations.”

Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, delete the words “overcome outdated nationalist attitudes and to”.

Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the words “various forms of harassment” with the following word: “maltreatment”.

Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the words “exiled islanders” with the following words: “former islanders”.

Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 9, add the following words: “to consider”.

Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.1, delete the words “also for the children of ethnic Turkish residents”.

Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, and Mr Mustafa Ünal, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.4, replace the word “exiled” with the following word:
“former”.

We will now consider the remaining amendments, which will be taken in the order in which they relate to the text.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to replace the words “different crises in relations between the two states” with the following words: “political crises between the two states and of economic difficulties”.

I call Mr Cebeci to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – This amendment refers to the people who left the island. This is well documented and agreed by the rapporteurs. The political problems were not the only problems. There were economic reasons and we would like that to be added.

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

Mrs BENAKI (Greece). – We do not object to talking about the economic difficulties, but those are the consequences of the political crisis and the political conflict. If it is allowed, I would like to propose an oral sub-amendment and to suggest changing the wording and saying “political crisis between the two states also resulting in economic difficulties.”

THE PRESIDENT. – You wish to have an oral sub-amendment? That is not possible, I am afraid. We have to vote on Amendment No. 3 as proposed.

What is the opinion of the Committee?

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.1, before the words “Muslim community schools”, to insert the following word: “Turkish”.

I call Mr Cebeci to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – This issue is about the schools on the island and in general in Turkey that are called Greek Orthodox community schools. Paragraph 9 deals with Muslim schools. We would like to add the word “Turkish” because that is the language taught in those schools.

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

Mrs BENAKI (Greece). – In western Thrace, the Muslim community totals 104 000. Of those about 50 000 are of Turkish origin, 37 000 are Pomaks and 16 000 are Roma. It is a factual change that we should try to introduce. Those schools address the needs of all Muslim-Greek citizens, not exclusively members of a particular community.

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

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I have an oral amendment. It was very difficult for Greek colleagues to accept the amendment and in order to make it more acceptable and with the consent of my Turkish friends, I propose the following: the oral amendment reads “in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.1, after the words ‘Muslim community schools’, insert the words ‘for the people of Turkish origin, the Pomaks, and the Roma’.” The Greeks would like to show that not everyone is of Turkish origin. The adjective used could suggest that.

THE PRESIDENT. – I remind the Assembly of the 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 it being debated.

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

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – Could Mr Gross read the oral amendment one more time?

THE PRESIDENT. – Please repeat the oral amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The oral amendment reads: “in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.1, after the words ‘Muslim community schools’, insert the words ‘for the people of Turkish origin, the Pomaks, and the Roma’.”

THE PRESIDENT. – Is there any opposition to the oral amendment?

That is not the case.

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

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The committee is in favour.

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

The vote is open.

The oral amendment is agreed to.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Anna Benaki, Mr Konstantinos Vrettos, Mr Aristotelis Pavlidis, Mr Nikolaos Dendias, Mr Ioannis Giannellis-Theodosiadis, Mrs Rodoula Zissi, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.2, to insert the following sub-paragraph:

“to return ethnic community (religious foundations and municipalities) public buildings as well as religious foundations and their property that were seized (as ‘mazbut’) and placed under the direct administration of the Vakifs’ D.G.;”.

I call Mrs Benaki to support Amendment No. 1.

Mrs BENAKI (Greece). – Mr Gross speaks about “returning properties” but it is appropriate to extend the version of paragraph 9.2 and add “to return ethnic community (religious foundations and municipalities) public buildings as well as religious foundations and their property that were seized (as “mazbut”) and placed under the direct administration of the Vakifs’ D.G.;”. That is in conformity with the report.

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

Mrs TÜRKÖNE (Turkey). –The return of expropriated property requires a judicial procedure. With the recent amendments to the relevant law, the situation with regard to such property has been brought in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Those people only need to apply to the Turkish courts to seek a remedy. If we accept the amendment, it will run counter to the principle of the separation of powers. My compromise proposal would be to put “examine the possibility if it is the case”.

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

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

      We now come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mr Andreas Gross, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Mustafa Ünal, and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10, insert the following paragraph:

      "The Assembly also invites Turkey and Greece to initiate a dialogue and consultation mechanism by which all the issues pertaining to the respective minorities as stipulated by the Lausanne Peace Treaty would be taken up in a bilateral context."

      I call Mr Cebeci to support Amendment No. 11. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr CEBECI (Turkey). – Alleviating the suffering of the respective minorities is an obligation undertaken by both Turkey and Greece, so extending an invitation to both countries to discuss those minority issues in the bilateral context would be a positive step forward.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr GROSS wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      “in Amendment No. 11, to replace the words ‘initiate a dialogue and consultation mechanism by which all the issues pertaining to the respective minorities as stipulated by the Lausanne Peace Treaty would be taken up in a bilateral context’ with the words ‘examine the possibility of initiating a dialogue and consultation mechanism in this respect, on the basis of applicable international standards’.” D

       Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is the case, so the oral sub-amendment cannot be moved.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs Benaki.

      Mrs BENAKI (Greece). – We are against the amendment, because it puts on the table a proposal to discuss the Lausanne Treaty again. That is not the purpose of the report, because the resolution aims to bring the two communities in both countries together to discuss the islands’ current problems. People are not entitled to re-discuss minority issues stipulated in the Lausanne Treaty.

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

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I will now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11629, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 11629, as amended, is adopted, with 32 votes for, 11 against and 2 abstentions.

8. References to committees

      THE PRESIDENT. – The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly. They are set out in Document AS/Inf (2008) 10.

      Is there any objection to the references to committees? That is not the case.

      They are approved.

9. End of the part-session

      THE PRESIDENT. – We have now come to the end of our business.

      I would like to thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs of committees for their hard work during this part-session. I would also like to thank staff, both permanent and temporary, and all the interpreters who have worked hard to make the part-session a success.

      The fourth part of the 2008 session will be held from Monday 29 September to Friday 3 October 2008.

      I declare the third part of the 2008 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 12.45 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Examination of credentials

3.       Changes in membership of committees

4.       Written declaration

5.       Preventing the first form of violence against children: abandonment at birth

Presentation by Mr Hancock of report of the Social Health and Family Affairs Committee, Doc. 11538

Speakers:

      Mr Schneider (France)

      Ms Woldseth (Norway)

      Mrs Stump (Switzerland)

      Mr Rochebloine (France)

      Mrs Volozhinskaya (Russian Federation)

      Mr Béteille (France)

      Mr Omelchenko (Ukraine)

      Mrs Goryacheva (Russian Federation)

      Replies:

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Ms McCafferty (United Kingdom)

      Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 adopted

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

6.       April 2009 part-session

7.       Göokçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos)

Presentation by Mr Gross of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11629

Speakers:

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Sigfússon (Iceland)

Mr Sarikas (Cyprus)

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mr Koç (Turkey)

Mrs Türköne (Turkey)

Mr Vrettos (Greece)

Mr Türkeş (Turkey)

Mr Grignon (France)

Mrs Benaki (Greece)

Mr Kumcuoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Çağlar (Cyprus: representative of the Turkish Cypriot community)

Mr Keleş (Turkey)

Replies:

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mrs Nakashidzé (Georgia)

Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 to 8, 10, 12, 9, oral amendment, 1 and 11 adopted.

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

8.       References to committees

9.       End of the part-session