Link
to the voting resultsAA09CR25 |
AS (2009) CR 25 |
DVD edition |
2009 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Third part)
REPORT
Twenty-fifth Sitting
Thursday 25 June 2009 at 3 p.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are summarised.
3. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
4. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.
Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The sitting is open.
1. Minutes of proceedings
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The minutes of the Twenty-third Sitting have been distributed.
Are these minutes agreed to?
The minutes are agreed to.
2. Organisation of debates
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – This afternoon the business is very full. We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the first debate on the funding of public service broadcasting at about 4 p.m., and the list of speakers in the joint debate on renewable energy and the environment and nuclear energy and sustainable development at about 6 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes.
Are these arrangements agreed?
The arrangements are agreed.
I remind the Assembly that we agreed yesterday that speaking time in all debates this afternoon is limited to four minutes.
Given the large amount of business we expect to consider at the Assembly’s final sitting tomorrow morning, I propose that speaking time in all debates be limited to four minutes.
Is that agreed to?
It is agreed.
3. The funding of public service broadcasting
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the funding of public service broadcasting presented by Mr Markku Laukkanen on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Doc. 11848, with an opinion presented by Mr Denis MacShane on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 11915.
We will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 4 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies and votes.
Are these arrangements agreed?
The arrangements are agreed.
The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 12 noon today, and 14 amendments have been tabled.
I call Mr Laukkanen, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Mr LAUKKANEN (Finland). – I shall discuss the short history of public service broadcasting. The notion of public service broadcasting was born when the United Kingdom decided some 80 years ago that, instead of government, the BBC itself should have the right to preside over its own budget and programmes. That was the start of the European model of public service broadcasting, which we can now find in many European countries and which has a long tradition in Europe.
Why is this subject so topical today? The answer is to be found in our report. Public service broadcasters exist in all European countries and are a strong part of the media landscape. Broadcasting is changing drastically, and many European countries have introduced digital broadcasting, while satellite broadcasting offers reception for an almost unlimited number of channels. Web television is becoming a reality and it has been successful for radio for many years. The time when viewers had a choice of one or two channels is over, and is part of media history.
At the same time, advertising revenue and audience numbers have been dropping for commercial broadcasters, thus increasing competition with public service broadcasters. Against that backdrop, broadcasters have lodged many complaints with the European Commission against EU member states. Politicians and viewers in several countries have started to reconsider the financing of their public service broadcasting. For example, France has decided against advertising on public service broadcasting and Germany has limited the activities of public service broadcasters. Britain has just published a government plan on digital media, including public service media, and in my country, Finland, there is a new model based on taxation instead of licence fee payment. Some countries try to limit the Internet reach of their public service broadcasters, and the European Commission has extended market competition rules to public service broadcasters.
Public service broadcasting, however, still maintains its key function of providing accessible information, education, culture and entertainment as part of its function as a recognised point for all members of the public, which is a factor in the social cohesion of individuals, groups and communities in the new information society. Public service broadcasters must comply with ethical and quality standards, and are therefore a trusted source of information. In a media environment consisting of hundreds of channels and millions of websites, users will choose the trusted media outlet.
Public service broadcasters often contribute to the production of high-quality films that respond to national cultural and social circumstances. Against that background, my report suggests that the state should continue to ensure the secure long-term funding of its public service broadcasters. It should decide on the funding and remit of its public service broadcasters in accordance with national or regional circumstances and demands. That also includes the role and definition of public service broadcasting, which is based on the protocol to the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, as well as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which clearly state that national legislators have the power to make such decisions. In addition, public service broadcasters should be able to use all technological platforms to achieve their broadcasting objectives. They should use the Internet and offer new Internet formats for media content, whether it is on-demand content or thematic content. I therefore encourage public service broadcasters to use every technological opportunity available.
It is impossible for public service broadcasters to ignore changing viewer demands. The number of people who watch television programmes in the way that they did 20 years ago is decreasing rapidly. Of course, public service broadcasters must remain independent of party political or governmental influence. When states review the funding of their public service broadcasters, they should take the opportunity to set rules on the independence of those broadcasters. The use of public service broadcasters for propaganda purposes compromises their reason to exist.
I have worked in broadcasting for many years and I believe in the importance of audiovisual media for society and for every individual. Thus the Assembly should agree with initiating national debates on the same fundamental principles. Media freedom, media pluralism, diversity and equality of media content are still well served through public service broadcasting that functions well. It is time for all national parliaments in Europe to take up the challenge on this subject. Mr President and dear colleagues, I ask you to adopt this draft recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Laukkanen. You have six minutes and 47 seconds in which to contribute later; we are very precise in the Council of Europe. I now call Mr MacShane to present the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee. I am much less generous with you – you have three minutes.
Mr MacSHANE (United Kingdom). – Three minutes will be enough, Mr President. The Political Affairs Committee welcomes the report, the thorough work carried out by our colleagues and the valuable help provided by Council of Europe experts and staff. Public service broadcasting is a core European value: it was developed in Europe, shaped by the BBC. I should declare an interest in that immediately after leaving Oxford University I worked for the BBC as a journalist and as a political and current affairs producer in television and radio. The organisation had the good sense to fire me for political indiscipline, but I do not bear any grudges. I am glad to see that in England the BBC director-general is now being required to reveal his expenses. If public service broadcasting is to command the public’s support, it must be more transparent about pay and expenses than even politicians.
The report seeks to examine key elements relating to what we mean by “public service broadcasting”. It is not state-controlled broadcasting, such as the Office de Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française, the former French television channel, whereby General de Gaulle would press a button on a desk to ensure that every day it conveyed only the General’s view of what was happening in France and the world. Interesting, informed and entertaining as that always was, it is not the same as the broadcasting controlled by President Chavez in Venezuela. Such provision varies from country to country, as does the form of funding. Some countries have a broad licence fee, France has the redevance audiovisuelle, some places allow some commercial advertising, while others allow some external activities, such as publishing of books and the organising of conferences to increase revenue. At the core of public service broadcasting remains the idea that democracy pays for a democracy’s ability to talk to itself through at least one or two channels, sometimes more.
Where I had my only slight difference with our colleagues, I tabled Amendment No. 5 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee. It seeks to address the assault on public service broadcasting from Mr Berlusconi, Mr Murdoch and those who want to take private control of what belongs to the public. I have urged a slight tightening up of the language, because we do not want the European Union to use its competitive and open-market philosophy, which I support, to remove this core European value. I wish to send a message to Mr Barroso, who has been reconfirmed as the European Commission president, “Sir, you are a liberal and you believe in open markets, but please protect European public service broadcasting, protect us from Mr Murdoch, President Chavez, Mr Berlusconi and the memory of General de Gaulle. Reject any attempt to allow competition and open-market European Union ideas and rules to weaken public service broadcasting.”
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr MacShane for your contribution and for having paid tribute to General Charles de Gaulle, even though I do not entirely agree with what you said about that great man of history.
We will now hear from the representatives of the political groups, beginning with Mr Wach, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr WACH (Poland). – On behalf of the EPP, I congratulate the rapporteur, Markku Laukkanen, on his excellent work. I also wish to emphasise the significance of the problem that is the subject of the report. Public media are functioning in a more difficult environment than before. They are being subjected to much more competition from a multitude of non-public channels that operate on a free-of-charge basis, on-demand media services and a rapid increase of the audiovisual content on offer on the Internet. However, the requirements on public media are very high and they are very well presented in paragraph 5 of the report.
Such requirements include: providing unbiased information and diverse political opinions; ensuring a high quality of all programmes; and providing support for non-commercial objectives, such as education, culture, tackling the problems facing minorities and other social issues. All those requirements and high standards, which should be evaluated from various angles and also by users, are difficult to obtain and require stable and impartial funding. That is the main subject of the report.
The way to fund public media varies between member states: approaches include a licence fee, the use of taxation, state subsidy, and other means. Most often, however, there is a mixed form of funding similar to that used in respect of other cultural public institutions. The report realistically notes that public acceptance of funding for public service broadcasting is decreasing, as more people than before do not appreciate public media sufficiently and because so many other sources are available. The situation of public media is not becoming easier and they often have to compete with commercial media for advertisements. The report does not present any special recipe for how to overcome the difficulties and for how to fund public media sufficiently, but the response should be in proportion to the mission and politicians should not be involved in information and programme matters.
The report only reminds national parliaments and member states to define the mission to find proper ways of non-direct funding and to establish clear review mechanisms to work out whether public media meet the requirements. This task is not easy and in several countries, including my own and the so-called new democracies, the problem has not been solved satisfactorily until now. There is a natural and understandable tendency among politicians to wish to be presented in the media often and in a way that suits them. It takes time and experience to fund and to introduce the proper legal and practical methods to work out the managing and funding framework for public media.
The report contains interesting and promising suggestions to try to involve non-public media in serving the public mission of the media. As we know, there are already examples of tendering arrangements, which are open to any legal media providers, for producing educational and cultural programmes. We think that that is a good way to increase competition in offering valuable programmes. Generally speaking, this report is one of a consecutive series that, over the years, have tried to remind member states and politicians of public media problems. It is worth approving, considering and applying in our countries, so that we can better serve the wide audience of our citizens.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mrs Barnett on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mrs BARNETT (Germany) said that this was an important report. Fundamental rights could only be guaranteed where there was freedom of expression, and public service broadcasting had a role to play in this. There were a lot of private television broadcasters and the Internet, so it was now a question of whether public service broadcasting was needed. The experience of private sector broadcasting in some eastern European states demonstrated that they could not necessarily be relied on to perform the same role as public service broadcasting.
In the meantime privately owned broadcast channels would be subject to the dictums of their owners. At the same time, it was important to avoid a situation where a state broadcaster had a monopoly of information.
Good state broadcasting served a number of functions that were vital to the health of a democracy. First, it provided objective and reliable reporting of events. Secondly, it provided an independent outlook and educational content. Thirdly, the interest of minorities could be served through public broadcasting. Fourthly, viewers and listeners were entertained. Although it was possible that private broadcasters could fulfil the same functions, they would not be subject to the same ethical regime as public broadcasters.
Since its early days, what the public expected of public broadcasting had changed significantly. Consumers increasingly used new media such as web-based social networking sites and television-based view-on-demand programming. However, European Union legislation regarding public broadcasting had not adapted to the changed landscape. Increasingly, some interests were questioning the basis on which public broadcasting was funded.
It was important to consider what was feasible for the future of broadcasting rather than to devise a wish-list that could never be realised. Paragraph 17 of Doc. 11848 was the most important paragraph of the report because it reinforced the case for high quality broadcasting which was equitably available to all at a moderate price.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Barnett. I call Ms Keaveney, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms KEAVENEY (Ireland). – I, too, rise to support my colleague, Markku Laukkanen, on his very fine report on the funding of public service broadcasting. I suppose that the first thing for me to say is that I strongly believe in the need for a public service broadcaster and see many roles for it in my own country, where the public service broadcasters are sometimes open to critical comment but also deserve praise.
In Ireland, RTE1 and 2 and TG4 are our state broadcasting stations. To begin with the praise, TG4 was a controversial concept when it was first mooted, but it is probably the most successful of the stations in terms of its mission. There was a drive within elements of Irish society for Irish language and culture, including sport, to be given a stronger media focus to enhance the use of what Unesco had determined to be an endangered language. There were many debates about how that should manifest itself. In the end, the decision, which was criticised in many political quarters, was taken to set up a separate station.
After a slow start due to the reality of creating material, the station evolved from showing re-runs of sporting matches of Irish football, hurling and camogie, and subtitled English programmes, to having its own documentaries, high-quality Irish language cartoons and so forth. People who initially switched on just to watch the matches found themselves tuning in earlier and watching after the matches to experience the distinctive style of TG4. Earlier this year, UNESCO upgraded our language from being endangered to merely being at risk. In part, that is due to the decision to spend taxpayers’ moneys on that kind of national broadcasting. It does what it says on the tin: it gives national information and it provides a cultural and educational space in a non-commercial and independent manner. Denis MacShane will recognise that I have stolen some of my words from his amendment.
To be more critical, it is important that the issues of balance and fairness are not merely aspired to but actually delivered on both radio and television. I am concerned about the constant attacks, which are familiar to anyone who has listened to RTE radio and RTE television chat shows in particular. By and large, the government and the political system are relentlessly pursued with very little redress that can be objectively described as fair and balanced.
A party colleague of mine, Peter Kelly who is a Teachta Dála from Longford, questioned Cathal Goan, chief executive of the broadcaster, in the Oireachtas committee recently. He asked, in view of the fact that a prominent member of RTE front-line staff was known to be contemplating running for political office for an opposition party, whether it was fair and balanced that the same economic correspondent should be allowed to make a documentary called, “We blew the boom”. The chief executive replied, “I will not answer any questions in relation to George Lee”. That same economic correspondent was elected in a recent by-election in Ireland in the celebrity style that his previous job afforded him. That may sound like sour grapes on my part, but an independent national broadcaster should aspire to be a voice for all the people, as far as that is possible, rather than continuing to bash the democratically elected systems and individuals that go before the people for re-election on a regular basis. However, now that that individual has bought into the system, he will probably be subject to the general onslaught against politicians and politics. The question that I therefore pose is if we do not want democracy – the right to change our parliamentarians every four or five years in proportionally representative elections – do we want a dictatorship? Should a radio or television presenter actually be our ruler? As Mr MacShane has said, many of them are paid multiples of what those whom they are criticising earn, but few of them will tell us about that.
I support Amendment No. 4 proposed by the Political Affairs Committee, which inserts an obligation to serve “people with special needs”.
If we are to have an independent public service broadcaster funded from the exchequer, we need to keep content to the fore and ensure that balance and fairness are the keystones of that content. I could say many more things in relation to content. So many stations host the same programmes simultaneously. There are regularly phone-ins where people can vote for the best singer, dancer, ice skater or the best dancing ice skater who can sing. Surely content should aspire to being more imaginative.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Ms Keaveney. I call Mr Kumcuoğlu, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr KUMCUOĞLU (Turkey). – Traditional broadcasting methods and delivery systems are changing and transforming into a shape and structure that we could hardly have dreamt of in the past. In the near future, broadcasting services will be provided as part of multiplatform operators’ services, and that will necessitate a more complex set of regulations, with aspects ranging from intellectual property rights to human rights in general. Among this jungle of services, either public or private, there is no need to go into detail about the importance of the public service media. In so many states, the remits of the public service media have been clearly set out before us as a responsibility that we have to fulfil for the next generations in Europe without showing any luxury of hesitation.
Keeping in mind the lessons that we learned in past times when public service broadcasting was perceived only as the magnificent and unique voice of the state over individuals and societies, rather than as a gift of democracy and human rights, I am sure we all understand that the value and the independence of the public service medium is of the utmost importance in our time, too. I agree that public service broadcasters must offer universal services and be accessible to all. They should therefore be available on all platforms, with their diversified, additional and individualised services alongside their traditional broadcasts.
For these services to be provided, and to maximise their role in diversifying and disseminating the social, cultural and educational content on all new communications networks as independent sources of impartial, trustworthy and qualified information, proper public funding should be ensured for public service broadcasters. It can surely be stated that one of the ways that true independence of a public service broadcasting organisation is ensured is through the realisation of a proper financing method.
I hope that the importance of the public service media is well understood by all politicians and that they help to accelerate the restructuring process of public service broadcasters to update their structure, services and funding in accordance with the demands of the 21st century. There is also a need to increase the transparency and accountability of public service broadcasters. They should be financially strengthened and, if it does not already exist, a set of criteria to measure their performance as to how much they fulfil their remit should be introduced, with a provision that their expenditures are made proportionately and with openness for each aim that they fulfil.
This report covers all these issues well enough, and it will be a useful tool for everyone involved. In the name of my group and myself, I congratulate and thank the rapporteur and others who have contributed to this excellent work.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kumcuoğlu. I call Mr Lecoq on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr LECOQ (France) congratulated Mr MacShane and Mr Laukkanen on their excellent report. The media and television in particular, were vital in a functioning democracy. In fact, a free media was indispensable in a civilised country. It was important not to confuse “public broadcasting” with “state broadcasting”. The latter term tended to refer to the kind of operation normally only found in totalitarian states under the more or less explicit control of the executive.
Public broadcasting assisted democracy through the provision of educational content and services and impartial news and information. Its role could be strengthened in a number of ways. First, broadcasts should remain free-to-air. Secondly, diverse opinions should be explored and tested in terms of editorial policy. Thirdly, educational content had to form a major part of programming. Fourthly, the independence of public broadcasters had to be enshrined in the constitution or by other legal means.
National parliaments should control broadcasting budgets but, at the same time, broadcasters should have sufficient resources to produce quality programmes. The media market was a notoriously competitive one. The issue of how public broadcasters were funded was therefore a matter of hot debate. However, it seemed clear that funding should be given on a long term basis and it should not be dependent solely on ratings.
The future for broadcasting was not the absolute control of the media in the style of President Putin or President Sarkozy or Prime Minister Berlusconi. Rather it would be one where broadcasters were well-resourced, independent and impartial.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Mr Laukkanen does not wish to say anything at this stage, so I call Mrs Bergamini.
Mrs BERGAMINI (Italy) said that she welcomed this courageous report. It was clear that the media were becoming ever more complex. There was a need to avoid superficial conclusions about the state of broadcasting, particularly in Italy .
In contrast to many inaccurate descriptions of broadcasting in Italy, the reality was that RAI, the public broadcaster, was the most popular Television channel in Italy. In fact it was the most watched channel in Europe. RAI was funded at a minimum cost to the taxpayer because that source of funding was supplemented by advertising revenue. In addition, it must be recognised that the media market in Italy was very open. For example, Mr Rupert Murdoch had started broadcasting in Italy very successfully.
Nobody in Italy seriously argued that public broadcasting did not have an important role. Current attacks on television in Italy were politically motivated.
A clear legislative framework for the provision of public service broadcasting should also be considered. Finally, granting the service provision to a single broadcaster guaranteed simpler and better quality broadcasting.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Bergamini. I call Mr Flego.
Mr FLEGO (Croatia). – I believe that I can speak briefly and not use up the four minutes allotted to me. It is commonly accepted that unless something is shown on television or appears in the mass media, it simply does not exist, and that whatever does show up on the television and in the mass media is heavily marked by that presentation. One could even say that the future life of something presented in this way is in fact determined by it. This is particularly the case for television, which is so influential.
Fortunately, we have a broad variety of broadcasting organisations and companies, but the majority of them, especially private concerns, must act according to policies defined by their owners and boards, must acquiesce in public demand or, in many cases, must pursue the financial gain expected of them.
Information is necessary for every decision-making process, and that is especially so for democracy since any manipulation of information can give rise to manipulated decision making. That is why it is so important both for democracy and for the health of all aspects of public life that there is broad access to neutral media that are able to broadcast the largest possible amount of information in the cause of the public interest. According to recent research, socially useful information such as news, educational, artistic and cultural programmes, along with entertainment and serious talk shows that can address delicate social questions, are mostly disseminated by public broadcasters. Since our personal freedoms depend upon a democratic setting and since that setting depends on our information systems, a neutral media provided by a public broadcasting service has political significance. However, the neutrality of public broadcasting needs both financial and political support.
I thank the rapporteur for his work and I do not doubt that it will be adopted by the Council of Europe. By doing so, I believe that we will once again set a standard that helps to contribute to the quality of our individual lives as well as, of course, to the quality of our co-existence.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Flego. I call Mr Badea.
Mr BADEA (Romania) said that it was vital to address the issue of quality at a time when quantity had largely overtaken quality due to the explosion in the number and type of broadcasters. The issue of quality was best addressed through public service broadcasting. Funding was often a problem but national parliaments had responsibility to address the structure and funding of public service broadcasters. Public radio remained an important means of transmitting social values, and this was certainly the case in Romania, and those with social responsibilities had a duty to sustain this type of broadcasting. The recent, rapid evolution in communications technology meant that broadcasters constantly had to update themselves. Public service broadcasters in particular needed to show greater creativity in order to keep pace with public demand for quality broadcasting.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Badea. I call Mr Walter.
Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – First, I congratulate the rapporteur. There is a very serious danger in this debate that we will all end up agreeing with each other. I start from the premise that public service broadcasting is a good thing. It is part of our social capital, but we know that it faces problems as a result of the challenges posed by the digital age. Starting from the dictum of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, we have something to work on here.
It is worth reflecting on the history of broadcasting. In most of our countries, for many years the only broadcasting available was through public service provision. In my own country, the BBC dominated both radio and television for many years. As a child growing up in the 1950s, there really was only the BBC apart from being able to tune in each evening to Radio Luxembourg in order to listen to the new “pop music” that was threatening to “undermine” society. None the less, commercial pirate radio stations soon dotted the coast of the United Kingdom and eventually the BBC also had to succumb to broadcasting popular music. At that point, we saw a complete change come about.
In television, in 1956, the government introduced the novel commercial station, ITV, which none the less had public service obligations. It had obligations in news, especially regional news, regional programming and the arts. For many years, we had a cosy balance between the BBC funded by the licence fee, ITV and Channel 5 funded by advertising and Channel 4 – a state-owned company but funded by advertising with a strong public service remit. That cosy balance was upset by satellite, the digital platforms that followed and the Internet. Earlier today, I watched proceedings in the House of Commons on my laptop and then listened to the lunchtime news on domestic radio, again through my laptop.
What is the role of public service broadcasting? What are its unique features? It is a medium for social solidarity, which means that it must be geographically universal within its country and its jurisdiction. It must be detached and independent and it should be judged on the quality of its content, not the quantity of its audience – not forgetting that, if taxpayers fund it, we must not ignore the majority to satisfy the minority. It should enrich our cultural life and reflect the public view, collectively agreed, that we should support the arts and culture in our countries.
How do we pay for it? I do not believe that there is a fixed and universal model – I think the rapporteur agrees. There has to be a role for a licence fee or taxation, for advertising and possibly for sponsorship. However, I would regret it if we went down the route of pay per view and subscription-only public service broadcasting. Public service broadcasting should be universally available and add to the cultural diversity of all our member states.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Walter. I call Mrs Rihter.
Mrs RIHTER (Slovenia). – The fundamental principles on which the services of public service broadcasters are based include diversity, sociodemographic and geographic universality and impartiality. Nowadays, almost all Council of Europe member states ask themselves what constitutes public interest and what can be offered by public services without distorting competition and cross-border trade within Europe. Public broadcasters currently face a loss of users among the young generation, whose main information and communication tool is the computer connected to the World Wide Web. The development of technology and new ways of transmitting television programmes, as well as the provision of new services, have triggered questions about which new services are adequate or compatible with public service broadcasting.
Slovenia is currently searching for answers to the following questions. Are the new services suitable for public service broadcasting? Is it necessary to pay extra for access to public broadcasters’ television services on demand or should they be financed from only public funds? When considering financing, one is struck by duality. The problem of double financing often arises as an outcome of primary legislation in a country.
The introduction of commercial activities into public service expenditure has a negative impact on the balance in the advertising market, through a more modest offer of advertising time. Public broadcasters will need to look for new sources of financing, mainly through mutual co-operation such as taking a common stand on the purchase of the rights to broadcasting.
I stress the importance of control over the performance of broadcasting services. Control will be efficient only if exercised by a body independent of the broadcaster’s management that has adequate legal instruments to fulfil its obligations. It cannot be part of the legal entity, as is the case of national television in Slovenia, where the public broadcaster often turns into the state broadcaster.
Public broadcasters should have the ability to seize, for the benefit of society, the opportunities offered by digitisation and the diversity of distribution platforms on a technologically neutral basis. To serve their basic purpose in the new digital environment, public broadcasters may use state aid to provide their audiovisual services through new distribution platforms intended to meet the democratic, social and cultural needs of society, which does not have a disproportionate impact on the market – that is unnecessary for performing the public service.
I am therefore pleased to support the report, which should serve as a basis for measures in national parliaments and a foundation for the work of ministers responsible for the media. I congratulate the rapporteur.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Rihter. I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – May I first congratulate the rapporteur and the rapporteur who gave an opinion, both of whom did very well? Mr MacShane’s helpful intervention will go some way towards improving general understanding of this important subject.
Today, we face a dilemma. Some members talked about General de Gaulle’s involvement in public service broadcasting in France. A common thread running through all debates on such matters should be that anyone who wears a uniform should never be let anywhere near public service broadcasting because they will want it under their control for ever. Our Italian friend, Mrs Bergamini, must live in a different world from the other Italian commentators, who are seriously critical of the way in which Italian broadcasting operates. One wonders just what sort of glasses she wears when she watches television in Italy.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation). – That is not true.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – The member will have a chance to have his say and I am sorry that Mrs Bergamini went, but this is a debate – we are not just making statements and the Italians should learn to live with that.
The vision statement for any public service broadcaster should be that, through its output of information, education and entertainment, it should promote public purposes. There should be eight main points for any public service broadcaster: sustaining citizenship; promoting civil society; promoting education and learning; sustaining creativity and cultural excellence; representing the nation through its regions and communities; bringing the nation to the world and the world to the nation; promoting its other purposes, and helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communication technology services. To do all those things, it must have in its output and programme content high quality, originality and innovation, and be challenging and engaging.
To make all those things happen, the final commodity is that it must be independent in all matters – in content and the way that is supplied, and in the management of its affairs. We used similar words in the charter that set up the BBC. That has sustained public service broadcasting for many generations in the United Kingdom. It works because of the final paragraph, which guarantees its independence. Despite what Bob Walter, who has also gone, said, you cannot mix public service broadcasting with sponsorship or advertising. The minute they are brought into the equation, you create a power complex whereby the person who pays can dictate the output. Funding for true public service broadcasting should always lie with the citizen. It should be taken away from any government. Governments should set, as we do in the United Kingdom, although it is not universally popular, a licence fee for everyone who owns a television. You cannot buy a television in England without getting a demand for your licence. In our law, if anyone sells a television to an individual they have to inform the licensing authorities. Failure to have a licence in the United Kingdom means a fine of £1 000 or €1 200 and the person’s name published in the media for not having a licence. In that way, we can sustain and properly fund public service broadcasting. There is no soft option for funding. Time and again in our monitoring reports, we suggest that there is some easy way to bring public service broadcasting into existence. That is a question that we all ought to answer, but before we fund such broadcasting we have to have the will to bring it into being.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Hancock. The final speaker is Mr Anghel.
Mr ANGHEL (Romania). – Fuelled by competition from the printed press and by the explosion of new media, which quickly turn into old media and generate future media, and given the added pressure of the trend towards oligopoly among large press corporations, the present media climate has tended to reach the limit of brutal and uncontrolled development.
The crisis in the media is not the only expression of technological progress. The media pay tribute to market competition, but their credibility sometimes vanishes as a result of the private ownership of media trusts by media tycoons who use their media institutions as weapons against business or political rivals. They even manage to establish the public agenda, which sometimes goes against the public interest.
The European Broadcasting Union, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education in Strasbourg, and the Culture and Education Committee in Brussels, have identified the fact that in this chaotic and confusing climate, stability is needed for public radio and television services. Such services are a neutral and impartial source of public information and offer a field of expression for diverse opinions and ideas. Strict editorial norms govern the activity of audiovisual media whose public service mission involves objectivity, equal treatment and independence from political and economic interference. Public media are in most cases the only media to promote national culture and traditions, intercultural dialogue and European values.
The role, mission and responsibilities of public service broadcasters can only be guaranteed through steady financing. Financial resources may come from various sources such as sales of audio, video and film products. Each form of financing allows public audiovisual media to adapt to the market, at the same time maintaining their position as guarantors of public interest. We plead for such support with all our strength, and we are equally convinced that it is vital not to abandon or reduce financing for public radio and television services.
That is why we salute the proposal that, both in future debates and in the preparation of documents, representatives of public radio and television services should be involved. Romania is very interested in that proposal. It is important to communicate with the European Commission and the expert committees in the European Parliament to make sure that the process runs efficiently.
That is supported by another major argument. At the May meeting in Reykjavik of European ministers responsible for media and new communication services, the main topic was investing the Internet with the status and values of a public service. A resolution entitled “Towards a new mass media concept” indicated the responsibilities that fell upon member states to provide Internet communication, as well as new services and media-related provision if they were to achieve that status.
The stakes are very high indeed. As the means of producing content disseminated through new communication channels multiply exponentially, an environment is created in which there is a huge quantity of completely unregulated information. That threatens fundamental democratic values, and the victims are the most vulnerable groups – children and teenagers – whose right to dignity, private life and intimacy are all affected by manipulative subliminal techniques. The Internet is a place, too, where terrorism propaganda and recruitment flourish. Protecting users and the public from those practices by imposing strict editorial standards for all media-related service providers is an urgent concern.
Until then, access to safe and reliable information is guaranteed only by the existence of genuine public services that have sufficient resources for investing in new technology. I am grateful for delegates’ attention, and I give my sincere congratulations to the rapporteurs and to the committee for raising this important issue.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Anghel.
I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.
I call Mr Laukkanen, the rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes.
Mr LAUKKANEN (Finland). – Thank you very much, dear colleagues, for your excellent contributions and feedback on the report. I am sorry that we do not have more time, because we have not heard from everybody who wished to speak.
What is the role of public service broadcasting? As Mr MacShane said, it is part of our core European values and it is still core to pan-European democracy. A key concern is independence, especially editorial independence. Public service broadcasting may be financed by the state, but it must never be controlled by the state. We must remember that key question when we discuss the role of public service broadcasting. When we try to define public service broadcasting, we must take into consideration the need to offer programming in a country’s own languages. We require that pluralistic content, whether educational or services for minority cultures and special population groups, is a cornerstone of such broadcasting. The broadcasting of major international sporting events such as the Olympics should be offered as a free service. The cost of the rights to broadcast such sporting events is rapidly increasing. Another cornerstone of the public service broadcasting ideal is the requirement that programmes are equally accessible and available to all citizens, regardless of their place of residence or economic status. That is very important.
There is some tension between public service broadcasting and commercial companies, which is why there is an ongoing debate on public service broadcasting in many countries, particularly on the financing of such broadcasting. Media companies have expressed their discontent with the present financing model and the fact that public services have expanded their activities and set up new distribution centres such as Internet and digital media. However, that is the right direction: public service broadcasting is not about old media – it is also about new media, and that ought to be the role of all distribution centres. Content should be available to all digital devices. We must remember that public service broadcasting provides a service for the audience.
Commercial media companies have expressed the view that public service broadcasting should only offer programme services of a limited scope, mainly serving small groups. They have also suggested that public service broadcasting should keep away from the new digital media markets, so there is a tension between the two actors. The determination of public service broadcasting content must be made by the public service broadcasting company itself, and that is an aspect of its independence. That independence requires genuine interest and passion for the task, but we have noticed an editorial culture of more personalisation, including more entertainment, even in serious programmes. We must be able to demand that public service broadcasting programmes take into account and respect cultural pluralism, democracy and the special needs of minority groups, so that different services are offered to everyone at the same price.
Finally, some words about the financing system. Public service media may be financed by a flat fee, a flexible or progressive tax, state subsidy, licence fees, advertising or sponsorship revenue. Specialised pay-per-view or on-demand services, the sale of related products such as books, videos and films and the exploitation of audiovisual archives may also be used, and such financing is rapidly increasing.
In that regard, public service media may have mixed funding arrangements, similar to those for other public cultural institutions, such as orchestras, theatres and museums. Each form of funding must enable public service broadcasters to meet their requirements on accessibility and affordability for the public at large. However, state-owned public service broadcasters should avoid competing with and thus distorting commercial markets. That is why the system that my country, Finland, and other Scandinavian countries have had is a very pure licence fee system, which is very fair for both parties – it is very fair for public service companies and for commercial markets. In those places, public service broadcasters never destroyed those markets. They do not have different interests in respect of this market and the financing issue.
The media is very necessary for democracy, and that is a key point to remember in our debate. The media constitutes a reference point for society and ensures cultural cohesion. Therefore, having public service broadcasting in European Union member states and in the member states of the Council of Europe is a necessary requirement for a stable and functioning media environment at the national level. This debate has been very positive and we have received excellent feedback. I really believe our debate has contributed to the future of public service broadcasting.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Laukkanen. Does the chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Mrs Brasseur, wish to speak? You have two minutes.
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said she had nothing to add as the rapporteurs had comprehensively summed up their excellent report.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Brasseur.
The debate is closed.
The Committee on Culture, Science and Education has presented a draft recommendation to which 14 amendments have been tabled. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education 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. 3, 4, 6 to 9, 11, 1, 14, 12 and 2 to the draft recommendation.
Is that so Mrs Brasseur?
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg). – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. – I must inform the Assembly that this rule states that, if no Assembly member objects, the amendments which I have listed, and which have been unanimously approved shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly.
Does anyone object? That is not the case.
The following amendments have been adopted: Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5, in the first and in the second sub-sentences, replace the word “should” with the following word: “must”.
Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5, after the words “they have the possibility and obligation to serve also minority viewers”, insert the following words: “and people with special needs”.
Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 10, add the following sentence: “The application of European Union law should not restrict member states’ powers to adapt the public service broadcasting remit to their own national needs.”
Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 10, add the following sentence: “In this respect, the Assembly recalls that the 1997 Amsterdam Protocol to the Treaty establishing the European Union clearly favours subsidiarity and national competencies for European Union member states in this field.”
Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 11, delete the words “the Amsterdam Protocol to the Treaty establishing the European Union of 1997 as well as”.
Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 11, add the following sentence: “The UNESCO Convention has also been signed by the EU.”
Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 13, delete the last sentence.
Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego, Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Albrecht Konečný and Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 15.5, insert the following sub-paragraph: “ask their governments to sign and ratify the European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage (ETS No. 183), if they have not yet done so, and analyse possibilities for preserving the audiovisual archives of their public service broadcasters as part of cultural heritage in accordance with this convention.”
Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Markku Laukkanen, Ms Elvira Kovács, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Jan Kaźmierczak, Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Detlef Dzembritzki, Mrs Gisèle Gautier, Mrs Muriel Marland-Militello, Mr Mogens Jensen, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu and Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 16 with the following sentence: “The Assembly welcomes the Action Plan on public service media adopted by the ministers participating in the Council of Europe's Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and New Communication Services (Reykjavik, 28-29 May 2009) and invites the ministers to reaffirm at the national level:”
Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 16.2, add the following words: “on all available platforms so as to reach all audiences, and in particular young people”.
Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego, Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Albrecht Konečný and Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 17.3, add the following sub-paragraph: “call on member states' governments as well as the European Community to sign and ratify the European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage (ETS No 183), if they have not yet done so.”
We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft recommendation. They will be taken in the order in which they affect the text, namely 5, 10 with a sub-amendment, 13 with a sub-amendment and 12. You have 30 seconds on each amendment.
We now come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, replace the second sentence with the following sentence: “The Assembly regrets tendencies within the European Union to restrict those national powers under Internal Market regulations and a growing number of complaints brought by private operators before the European Commission against European Union member states.”
I call Mr MacShane to support Amendment No. 5.
Mr MACSHANE (United Kingdom). – Following consultation with my colleagues, I seek your permission to propose an oral sub-amendment, Mr President. Amendment No. 5 seeks to replace the word “notes” in paragraph 10 of the draft recommendation. My oral sub-amendment is as follows: to replace “regrets” in the amendment with “is concerned by”. I thus amend paragraph 10 to say “The Assembly is concerned by tendencies within the European Union”. I understand that that is acceptable to my colleagues on the committee, so if that is acceptable to you, Mr President, we can consider my oral sub-amendment, unless, of course, 10 or more members of the Assembly object.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr MacShane.
Is there any opposition to the oral sub-amendment being considered?
That is not the case.
We thus consider that the oral sub-amendment may be examined. As Mr MacShane has already supported it, we shall move on.
Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg). – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg). – The committee is in favour of the amendment, as amended.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 5, as amended, is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Denis MacShane, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 12, replace the third sentence with the following sentence: “However, public acceptance of funding public service broadcasting might be decreasing in view of the increasing audiovisual content available through converging media platforms and the Internet.”
I call Mr MacShane to support Amendment No. 10 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.
Mr MacSHANE (United Kingdom). – I had thought that this was accepted, because it is simply a statement of fact. Public service broadcasting faces a serious problem, because people are now able to access broadcasting through the Internet. We need to address the situation, because if an increasing number of people are watching any form of broadcasting through the Internet, rather than through a television or radio post, in their homes or offices, audiences fall and the justification for having collective provision through a licence fee also comes under threat. The amendment is a statement of fact, rather than an argument against what is said in the report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I understand that Mr Laukkanen wants to table a sub-amendment, as follows:
replace the words "might be" with the following word:
"is".
I call Mr Laukkanen to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education. You have 30 seconds.
Mr LAUKKANEN (Finland). – The sub-amendment seeks to replace the weaker “might be” with the word “is”, because the report is discussing a fact. Many experts gave a common answer and agreed with us on this.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment No. 10, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mrs Anna Čurdová, Mrs Alena Gajdůšková, Mr Pavel Lebeda, Mr Miloš Melčák and Mr Leonid Slutsky, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 12, to insert the following paragraph:
“Recalling that public service broadcasters must be independent from government and be able to function without political interference by government, the Assembly emphasises that their funding should reflect this independence. Therefore, it is preferable to provide public service broadcasters with alternative means of funding as well as to avoid frequent governmental decisions on their funding.”
I call Mrs Čurdová to support Amendment No. 13.
Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – The amendment speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – A sub-amendment has been tabled, as follows:
replace the words “the Assembly emphasises that their funding should reflect this independence. Therefore, it is preferable to provide public service broadcasters with alternative means of funding as well as to avoid frequent governmental decisions on their funding.” with the following words:
“the Assembly emphasises that their funding model should reflect this independence.”
I call Mr Laukkanen to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education.
Mr LAUKKANEN (Finland). – I am very happy with this sub-amendment. When we prepared it in my committee, we discussed the funding model.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Mrs Čurdová.
Mrs ČURDOVÁ (Czech Republic). – Agreed.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is agreed to.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg). – The amendment was adopted by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment No. 13, as amended, is agreed to.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 11848, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Doc. 11848, as amended, is adopted, with 79 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions (Recommendation 1878).
I congratulate the rapporteurs and the committee.
(Mr Herkel, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in the place of Mr Mignon.)
4. Renewable energies and the environment-nuclear energy
and sustainable development – joint debate
THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the joint debate on the reports from the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs on renewable energies and the environment presented by Mr Jean-François Le Grand, Doc. 11918, and on nuclear energy and sustainable development presented by Mr Bill Etherington, Doc. 11914, with an opinion presented by Ms Anna Lilliehöök on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Doc. 11961.
It will be necessary to interrupt the list of speakers at about 6 p.m. to allow time for the replies and votes.
I call Mr Le Grand, Rapporteur, to present the report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs on renewable energies. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Mr LE GRAND (France) said that his brief speech would cover the salient points of the report which had identified the drivers for change in the energy market. The current system was based on finite fossil resources and globalised economic structures. At some point in the not too distant future, there would be no fossil fuels left to consume because of the world’s growing demand for energy and it would take millions of years for new fossil fuels to be formed. These factors had also created a dangerous situation for the environment. The world was experiencing potentially catastrophic climate change as a consequent of the burning of fossil fuels and consequent release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in far, far greater amounts than from any natural process. Nuclear power was also, potentially, an extremely dangerous alternative. Combined, these factors had created energy dependencies which in turn had caused or contributed to significant negative impacts for many nations. The most serious consequences included a fast reducing availability of water in many parts of the world, flooding in other parts and significant consequences for health.
There was an urgent need to conduct research into the potential exploitation of renewable fuels. The world needed a solution to its energy demands that did not create other problems. There were no easy answers; nuclear energy at best was a stop-gap solution. Clean coal technology offered a potentially effective alternative in the medium term, but not yet. The case for wind energy and solar power had not been proven, largely because of the difficulties of storing the energy that was produced to smooth out generation fluctuations. Bio-ethanol created carbon emissions, albeit not as much as fossil fuels.
It was important that knowledge of new renewable fuels and technologies was shared and transferred between all countries of the world. The problem faced was too large to be subject to petty parochial interests. It was certain that in future there would be less reliance on traditional sources of energy and ever greater use of renewable fuels. The costs of renewable fuels and technologies was largely unknown but was likely to be significant because, depending on the category of renewable resource, there would be significant amounts required for investment into research and development and waste disposal or other environmental impact mitigation measures. The report had highlighted these challenges, clearly and in detail.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Le Grand. You will have seven and a half minutes to respond later.
I call Mr Etherington on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. You have 13 minutes.
Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – It is a great honour and a great pleasure to be able to present this report, because it seems to be quite some time since the committee first decided to deal with this matter. I would like first to place on record my great appreciation to a former colleague on that committee, Mr Grachev, who did a tremendous amount of research and provided a lot of information without which we could not have produced this report in the form that it is. I have to say that Mr Grachev is perhaps more pro-nuclear than I am. I must stress that throughout our discussions in the committee it has been my intention, as rapporteur, not to be seen as pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear but to try to be impartial. I hope that my colleagues will accept that, because it is most important. I would also like to thank Bogdan Torcǎtoriu, who has done a lot of research in making the report available.
I know that nuclear power is a very contentious issue. All the time that I have ever known about it, there have been people who are strongly in favour of it and people who are strongly against. The only way that we are likely to be able to move forward and get a consensus is to try to find a way between those extremes so that what we present is seen to be acceptable to, if you like, the middle ground.
The committee has been very consistent over many years now in one thing, which we have always said in absolutely every report: in the long term, the only answer is renewable energy sources. Nuclear power is not in that category – it is finite, for the simple reason that the feedstock uranium will not last for ever. Even at the present rate of consumption, with a relatively low nuclear generation capacity throughout the world, we are perhaps looking at another 80 to 85 years. Yes, we can say that there may well be advances in the future that will change that, but that is where we stand at the moment. However, that is not to say that it cannot play a valuable role.
I should also note that there are still many unresolved problems concerning the disposal of nuclear waste. I am hopeful that, as time goes on, we may be able to resolve them, but that is uncertain at this juncture.
Of course, nuclear power also has advantages, one being that it will give nations an opportunity to move away from fossil fuels towards true renewable energy without creating additional carbon dioxide. The situation concerning the carbon dioxide that we have in the atmosphere at the moment is indeed grim, and it is something that we need to pay attention to. Nuclear power might seem to have long-term advantages, but they are not really long term. Eighty years is not very long, and oil, gas and uranium will probably run out at the same time; coal might last a bit longer. Another factor that needs to be taken into account – my colleague, Mr Le Grand, mentioned it earlier – is that as time goes on it may be possible to capture the carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels in the generation of electricity. If that can be done, that will alter the whole scenario.
We also addressed the need for better training. We need to train more nuclear scientists, as we seem to have a shortage of them. It is vital that we look at that, because at the moment we are not in a very good position.
I am very pleased that the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development is broadly in favour of what we are saying. Indeed, there is also a very sound economic case, although of course we did not consider it.
In conclusion, I know that there are people who are vehemently against nuclear power, and that there are people who have said this week that this report is pro-nuclear. All I can do is say that I totally deny that and refuse to accept it.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Etherington. You have a maximum of seven minutes remaining for your contribution to the debate.
I call Ms Lilliehöök to present the opinion of the committee.
Ms LILLIEHÖÖK (Sweden). – We support Mr Etherington’s conclusions more or less to their full extent, but point out that nuclear energy generates lower emissions and is a viable economic alternative when compared with other energy sources. New technologies being developed in the nuclear field use less uranium, making its use possible for a longer period, while further developments will eventually make it possible to use other fuels such as thorium.
Nuclear energy is a promising economic alternative. The heaviest expenses incurred are the investment costs, but the fuel produced is much cheaper. Once the initial investment has been made, the costs associated with nuclear are far more stable than those seen in the fluctuating prices of oil and gas. We think that that is a positive aspect of nuclear generation.
However, as I said, the initial investment and construction costs are extremely high and many reactors eventually become a lot more expensive to run than was originally planned. Even so, those costs are relatively low when compared with the amount of energy that can be produced. While some evaluations indicate that they are about half those of wind power, nuclear is still a viable alternative. But, of course, nuclear also needs many resources for research and development into greater safety, as it always carries serious safety implications as the previous speaker mentioned. It is also necessary to foster an exchange of information about technological developments and to foster the transfer of skills within the industry.
Nuclear energy is an important factor economically since it provides almost one fifth of all the electricity produced. In some countries such as France it provides three quarters of the nation’s energy requirements, while in Sweden, where I come from, it makes up half of today’s energy provision. It is essential that we consider these facts and certainly the committee has concluded, in the light of today’s technological advances, that nuclear power can offer an economic alternative.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Ms Lilliehöök. We are now starting the debate and we shall hear first from the spokespersons for the political groups. I call Mrs John-Calame on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mrs JOHN-CALAME (Switzerland) considered the report very interesting and deserving of the Assembly’s total support. The fact that the climate was being affected by mankind’s activities could no longer be contested. In order to halt this inexorable impact, it was the time for action not words. In this context, she emphasised the need both to increase energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources which had not yet been sufficiently exploited. The Assembly had not only to be convinced of these realities, but to act as though it were convinced. Society still wasted far too much energy. Renewable energy had the additional benefit of enabling far more decentralised production which had the effect of increasing the security of supply. The availability of sun and sea and wind was also far more widespread than more traditional fossil fuels and – once the required technologies had been further developed – would mean that a traditional cause of conflict, namely fighting over resources such as oil, would be redundant.
Measures aimed at achieving these goals, such as the construction of energy-saving buildings and public transport, should be subsidised. Use of the stand-by mode should be prohibited and all relevant goods should display an energy label so that consumers could choose the most efficient. There was a need for progress in the construction industry with, for example, increased emphasis on double-glazing and solid insulation. There were some buildings which now produced more energy than they consumed. She listed a number of different sources of renewable energy. The Socialist Group urged the Assembly to support the report but the group was itself divided on the issue of nuclear energy and individual members would speak according to their own conscience and views.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs John-Calame. I call next Mr Giaretta on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr GIARETTA (Italy) congratulated the rapporteurs on their excellent report. He agreed that the use of renewable energy should be increased since such technology was relatively simple without having major environmental impacts. However, there were limits on solar and wind power as they were not constant.
Nuclear energy was more controversial: it produced less global warming gases but there were of course serious problems associated with it. Increased use of nuclear power would lead to faster depletion of known uranium resources and there was still no acceptable solution to the problem of disposal of nuclear waste. In addition, nuclear power plants were extremely expensive to build. The Gen IV Project already involved 12 countries and, if some of the major problems with nuclear power could be solved through such projects, this would be a major step forward.
World demand for energy had now reached 12 billion tonnes of oil equivalent per year. By 2030, demand would have increased by half as much again, and would have doubled by 2050. This was why energy-saving initiatives were vital and it was imperative to reduce demand. There had been significant steps forward in terms of energy-saving, but much more progress was needed.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Evans to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – I congratulate both rapporteurs, Mr Le Grand and Mr Etherington on their excellent reports. The demand for energy has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase. The expansion rates of China, India and, indeed, Russia, are enormous. If only we saw such expansion in Africa, I would be pleased because I want the developing world to be developed and I do not want people to continue to live in medieval conditions. Our approach to energy must recognise that there will be increasing demands but that, at the same time, we all share this valuable asset called planet Earth. We need to ensure that energy demands are sustainable or met through sustainable means.
We all looked on in horror when the price of oil hit $150 a barrel and people predicted that it could reach $250. That would have had an enormous impact on our economies. Fossil fuels are finite and renewables, as the name suggests, are infinite. We should concentrate far more on conservation. If only we conserved the energy we already use, we would not need to produce so much. Stand-by mode on televisions has been mentioned – clearly, there is much wasted energy in the world.
There needs to be far more research and development regarding renewables, such as solar power. There has not been a sufficient drive for solar power over the years. With much more research and development, that form of renewable energy could be used far more. I saw a housing development in Botswana, where solar panels were used as part of the new build. That was encouraging. We should consider issues such as the life of car batteries. I saw a car in the House of Commons with an electric battery. It can do 198 miles before it needs recharging and we are considering technology that can recharge such a battery in 10 minutes. Such things will encourage people to go out and buy electric cars. I understand that the United States and President Obama are backing that.
Let us consider wind. Yesterday, Britain announced another 7 000 offshore wind turbines – they seem to have fewer problems when they are offshore. They will be in place by 2020, but we must recognise that it is not always windy, not even in Britain, so we need alternatives.
Hydro turbines need far more research and development. I wrote a report in April on biomass. We should consider second generation algae, but we must be careful about the current use of biomass, which will lead to increases in the price of food, deforestation and soil erosion.
Nuclear has to be part of the mix and I think that Bill Etherington’s report is fair and balanced. It is neither too pro nor too anti-nuclear. Much of France’s energy depends on nuclear power, whereas the use of nuclear power in Britain has been dwindling. That is dangerous and I blame successive governments for not making earlier decisions on the matter.
If we are to have a sustainable future, we must have sustainable energy. Research and development now will pay dividends in the future.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Evans. I call Mr Lotman on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) – We all know that to sustain a complicated system, we need some input of energy. That is a simple thermodynamic truth. Yet there are always problems with energy use, and the more you use, the bigger the problems become. At one stage in our civilisation, it was probably necessary to use fossil fuels. It is now imperative to start to stop using them. There are two reasons for this – fossil fuel reserves are finite, and the ability of our environment, especially the atmosphere, to absorb the products of fossil fuel use is even more so. Of all the negative impacts of fossil fuel burning, that of carbon dioxide on the climate is clearly the most global. Hence, there is hardly any doubt about the need to wean ourselves off coal, oil and gas.
The two reports that we are debating today consider two alternatives to fossil fuels: renewable sources and nuclear energy. Before considering the detail of the reports, let me emphasise something that two colleagues have already said – energy saving is most important. No source of energy, whether renewable or fossils, can sustain inefficient energy use in the long run. It has been shown that investing in so-called “Nega-watts” rather than mega watts, is much better. However, the simple thermodynamic truth is that we still need some input.
I generally endorse the report on renewable energy. Some points could have been expressed more strongly, especially internalising the external costs of fossil-fuel based energy and the need to clear national planning in energy development.
I have many more doubts about the report on nuclear energy. I agree with what the rapporteur says, but when I read the report, I am more doubtful. First, the explanatory memorandum by the previous rapporteur is over-enthusiastic about nuclear power. Of course, the preamble makes the report more balanced. Fortunately, the draft resolution is not as enthusiastic about nuclear energy, but several statements are still too pro-nuclear. The draft resolution does not sufficiently address the risks of nuclear power. We must not forget Chernobyl. Unacceptable risks already exist. Some colleagues and I have therefore tabled several amendments to try to make the resolution more balanced.
I represent those who do not believe that the future of our energy sector lies in large-scale nuclear development. It needs to be stressed that the profits of large-scale nuclear development are usually reaped by private companies, while the risks and responsibilities have to be borne by the whole of society. However, I agree that, given the urgency of the need to cut our fossil fuel use, we must postpone phasing out nuclear energy. Therefore, I go half-way with the report – nuclear energy will play some part in the energy mix for some time.
Finally, let me reiterate a simple truth: if we are to maintain society and avoid environmental catastrophe, spatial and sectoral planning based on long-term vision is necessary, and it must give priority to energy saving and renewable energy sources used in a sustainable way.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lotman. I call Mr Sasi, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Mr SASI (Finland). – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their very good reports, and I am happy that one report recommends the use of nuclear power in member countries.
As we all know, the biggest challenge for our generation is climate change. The climate has always changed, but this time, it is man-made and we have to do something about it. It is a shame that we are still burning coal and oil. In London, when people stopped burning coal, the environment improved dramatically, and that is the best demonstration of the fact that we should not burn coal. We have all seen the changes that have taken place, and as has been said regarding the car industry, it is preferable not to use oil in cars. Within two decades, we will probably use electric vehicles, and that is the right direction for us to go in Europe.
We have to develop renewable resources, making them more efficient and using them as much as possible. However, wind and solar power are costly, and given the employment situation today, we have to consider how we spend our money. There is certainly not enough of such power, because they are small energy sources, and they do not provide a constant supply, which can be a problem, especially in Finland, where solar power is not usable in the winter. Wind power, too, is not a regular source, and we require a regular resource base for electricity.
That is where nuclear power comes into the picture. We can rapidly build nuclear power stations, and they provide an effective solution from big units. We are now recommending the use of nuclear power in European countries, and we are preparing, on the basis of the Kyoto agreement, for the Copenhagen negotiations on a new climate agreement. Energy prices can rapidly jump, and there have been problems with energy security, especially gas from Russia.
My country, Finland, is now building the biggest nuclear power plant in the world, and next year, our parliament will probably give a permit to build another nuclear power plant. We have a government of Conservatives and Greens, who do not like nuclear power, but they are ready to accept its implementation in government. Things therefore change when there is big pressure as a result of climate change. The best recommendation is to extend the lifespan of existing nuclear plants. They can be used for more than 50 years, and that is an environmentally friendly decision, because we have to use our investments as long as possible.
It is good to begin these efforts in a recession. When nuclear power was not so prevalent, that meant that knowledge from new research was not used. Nuclear power is, however, a medium-term solution, and fusion power will probably be the next solution. However, the development of fusion power has progressed quite slowly. At this moment in time, nuclear power is the responsible solution for us.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Sasi. The rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but does either Mr Le Grand or Mr Etherington wish to speak now?
That is not the case, so I call the next speaker in the debate, Mr Frécon.
Mr FRÉCON (France) said that energy and international relations were more closely linked than ever before and the strategic importance of energy was significant. It was now a source of crisis and conflict.
The French National Assembly was currently looking at a wide-ranging environmental bill, which would implement France’s policies on renewable energy generation. The European Union Energy and Climate Change Package had set a target of 20% of electricity generation coming from renewable sources by 2020. Today, the level was only 8.5%. The effort to meet the EU’s target would be shared between member states. France had a target of 23.5% but the current level of generation was only 10.3%. France would meet this by doubling of its renewable energy output using biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power. France’s carbon dioxide emission levels per person were one of the lowest in the industrial world. France had the second highest potential for exploiting wind power in Europe, sunshine level above the European average, significant geothermal potential and many companies in this sector.
The move to renewable energy had many advantages: security of supply, energy independence and the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. Tens of thousands of jobs could be created in the renewable sector; 75 000 jobs existed now but by 2020 this could have increased to 250,000.
Europe had to move to renewable energy quickly but carefully and security of supply had to be maintained.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Frécon. I call Mr Grignon.
Mr GRIGNON (France) said that although he agreed with the majority of the report, paragraph 15 was not appropriate. Uranium reserves, although finite, were not yet limited. Research indicated that 15 to 22 million tonnes of uranium were still available. Furthermore, fourth generation reactors were able to use uranium far more efficiently than their predecessors. In France, the commitment to nuclear energy had kept electricity prices lower and more stable than electricity produced from fossil fuels. France’s use of nuclear energy had kept its greenhouse gas emissions low in comparison with other OECD countries. The European Commission had said that the Kyoto targets could not be met if nuclear generation levels were reduced.
Nuclear power had its challenges and these challenges had to be met. The industry had to be transparent, particularly when dealing with the question of nuclear waste. More research needed to be conducted into the disposal of nuclear waste and some of the profits of the nuclear industry had to fund this.
The PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Grignon. I now call Mr Austin from the United Kingdom. He is not here, so I call Mr Díaz Tejera.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that it was impossible to make a distinction between the three great challenges of the 21st century: reducing greenhouse gases, increasing renewable energy production and the problems of human migration due to climate change.
In Spain, there was lots of sunshine and lots of wind and yet very little investment in renewable energy had taken place. On the other hand, other countries with fewer resources had invested significantly. The question of why research in fossil fuel technologies was still moving ahead more quickly than in renewable energy needed to be answered. This was a cross-party issue and important to all of us. Research had to be conducted into a diverse range of technologies. No country could rely on only one source or supply of energy. Research had to have no limits and information had to be shared.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. I call Mr Eörsi.
Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I want to start with a confession: I do not understand anything – I do not understand the environment, either. I do not think that I am far from the truth when I say that that is also true for many colleagues who have spoken today about energy and the environment. We are extremely dependent on experts, and we always agree with whomever we have listened to last. Is there enough gas under the Caspian Sea? Some people say there is a lot, others say that there is little. Is climate change cyclical? No one really knows. However, we must address all those issues. The problem is that politicians not only in Strasbourg but in capital cities, cannot decide technical inventions. If a new source of energy were available in sufficient quantities, it would be a solution.
I agree with the previous speaker that energy has nothing to do with political colours – incidentally, Mr Díaz Tejera, you forgot to mention the liberals. Both socialists and liberals can be divided among themselves on energy issues. I agree with everyone who has said that we have a huge responsibility to our children and grandchildren, which is very true, but we are also responsible for next winter, which is a problem. How can we heat homes and keep the economy running?
In my country, Hungary, we face two problems. First, the anti-communist movement began with a green movement against a big dam that the communists wanted to build on the Danube in order to generate electricity. That scheme was stopped, and since then no one has dared to touch the issue, which is very sensitive. Secondly, Hungary is dependent for its supply of energy on Gazprom. What happens depends on Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin, and the gas is not coming any more.
We can come to Strasbourg and talk about energy, but we are responsible for heating homes next winter and the economy still needs energy. I have a question for the rapporteurs who are against nuclear energy: how can we provide energy for our people? If our source of energy is cut, what other solution will provide safety and security for our people? If we can get a reliable source of energy that can be implemented in the near future, we will be happy to use it. While I share the worries about nuclear energy, I also support nuclear energy. I want to preserve the future of our children and grandchildren, but I also have a responsibility to the people who elected me.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Eörsi. I call Mrs Stump.
Mrs STUMP (Switzerland) said that she had for 12 years been a member of the Swiss Energy and Environmental Commission. That committee and the Swiss population fully recognised the need to reduce the environmental impact caused by the use of fossil fuels.
The report had downplayed the potential of renewable fuels. Latest estimates from Swiss academics were that renewable sources of energy would be just as cost-effective as fossil fuels within five years. There was not enough consideration in the report about the merits of energy efficiency. There were examples of companies in Switzerland which had doubled their turnover in the last 20 years, but at the same time had reduced energy use by 20%. There was clearly great potential for more energy saving both in industry and by domestic consumers and it was a shame that the report had not considered this in sufficient depth.
The section of the report which concerned nuclear energy was troubling. It was highly questionable how sustainable nuclear energy would be in the long term. The problem of how to dispose of nuclear by-products and waste had not been resolved. Any likely solution would cost a great deal of money and risks would remain. The world desperately needed a solution to that problem but it had come no nearer to reaching one in the last 50 years. There was no sign of a solution on the immediate horizon. Assembly members should reject the report before them.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Stump. I call Mrs Lundgren.
Mrs LUNDGREN (Sweden). – We only have one world – our blue planet Earth – and we must take care of it. We must work to make development sustainable not for ourselves, but for our children, for our grandchildren and for their grandchildren.
Today, there are two big challenges to deal with here in Europe and throughout the world – economy and ecology. We have the opportunity to create an eco-efficient economy and to promote a better, more sustainable future for us all.
This autumn, it is very important for all of us to find a road forward together in Copenhagen. We parliamentarians here in Europe have a big responsibility to make that happen and to handle the situation so that we can have a new treaty to combat climate change.
We must do our homework. We have tried to do it in Sweden, where we have decided to combine our policies on climate change and energy. Every country must find a way to deal with its obligations to reduce emissions of gases in the short term until 2020 and in the medium term until 2050. Due to the timetable, we must do what we can to make change happen. In the short term, it is obvious that we must do our utmost to save energy, including electricity. We must promote renewables and get rid of fossil energy generation. We do not have a lot of time to make big investments before 2020.
In the short term, it is obvious that nuclear energy is needed, where it is already generated, but it is not the long-term solution. In the medium term, we must promote sustainable energy. Neither fossil energy nor nuclear energy are sustainable, and they should therefore be cut in the long term.
Finally, please vote for the amendments that Mr Lotman discussed earlier, which would promote real change in Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Lundgren. I call Mr Volonte'.
Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) added his thanks to the rapporteur and the committee for producing their excellent report.
Italy depended on supplies of gas from Russia and Algeria. The political situations in those countries meant that Italy was reliant on unstable sources for its energy. Moreover, Italy was charged for its gas supply at an outrageously high price. The situation had stimulated the debate about Italy’s energy supply.
There was clearly a need for more renewable fuels at a reasonable cost. The report had proposed the sensible policy of investing more in wind, solar and bio-ethanol sources of energy. However, there was no panacea to the problem that faced the world.
Many developing countries had refused to accept targets for greenhouse emissions. Although that was understandable to some extent because those countries wanted swift economic progress, it would do nothing to help the world reduce its overall emissions.
In Italy, pressure to invest in nuclear energy had grown recently. Although the country had traditionally been against nuclear energy there were signs that enthusiasm for that particular source of energy had grown. Nuclear power was a relatively cheap and, in the context of climate change and air quality, a clean energy. It would surely form part of any solution to the worlds energy crisis, at least in the short term.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Volonte'. I call Mrs Petir.
Mrs PETIR (Croatia). – The report points out the most important thing, which is that the increase in usage of renewable sources of energy is necessary, not only because we need to decrease the emission of gases produced by greenhouse effect, which would slow down climate change, but because at this moment, even more, we need an increase of independence in energy sources and supplies, so we should provide for secure energy production and supply.
In meeting the growing demand for energy, fossil fuels are dominant, which has negative repercussions for many national economies. One of the main causes of their dominant position in the market is subsidies, through which, over the years, they have been encouraged. Nor was the harm done by the production and use of such fuels to health and the environment taken into account. That is why renewable sources of energy, in comparison with fossil fuels, have been unduly put aside. That has been changing, mainly because of the rise in the price of fossil fuels.
To truly increase usage of renewable sources of energy in a shorter time span, it is necessary to undertake certain measures. Croatia is looking for a way to increase renewable energy sources by devising an energy strategy, which, in turn, could potentially generate further development of economy and the new jobs. The price of fuels and the stability of that price are extremely important for the economy, which is already undergoing a lot of hardship. The report rightly points out that supply of fossil fuels is limited and that, while planning ahead, to fulfil future needs for energy, this factor should be taken into account.
All aspects lead to the conclusion that using renewable energy sources is in accordance with the postulates of sustainable development, which means economic gain with minimum harm done to the environment, with respect for social rights and the well-being of the whole community. Because the use of renewable energy sources is mostly local and diversified, that allows each and every community to have a possibility of using the given potential in such a way – taking into account energy efficiency – as to manage energy itself.
The project on the management of energy in cities and counties of the Republic of Croatia includes 127 cities and 20 counties, which have signed the energy charter of mayors and heads of counties. By this act, the representatives of local government and self-government have shown their political will, intention and awareness of the need to manage energy problems on the level of a local community and all its citizens. In this way, they showed their readiness to accept their part of the responsibility for energy management in cities and municipalities.
No one has any doubt that we need radical changes in today’s way of producing and using energy. However, it will be difficult to achieve such changes without adequately informing the public on all the advantages for the whole of society that stem from use of renewable sources of energy. I am positive that the International Renewable Energy Agency can contribute a lot in that direction. Among other things, using the renewable sources of energy helps to preserve the environment, lowers the emission of greenhouse gases, gives incentives to develop new technologies, provides for new jobs and increases security of energy supplies.
In any case, we should do our utmost to remove possible obstacles which stand in a way of the greater use of renewable sources of energy, and we should definitely, as soon as possible, induce investment in such energy sources.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Petir. Ms Pashayeva and Mrs Curtis-Thomas are not here. I call Mr Santini.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that he was delighted to speak to the Assembly on such an important matter. The report would undoubtedly provide an important contribution to the debate about energy resources.
Mr Volonte' had quite accurately referred to Italy’s reliance on gas as its main energy source. In effect, Italy had been held hostage by the Russian Federation which had provided gas at a cost some 30% higher than the gas bought by France and Germany. The Russian Federation must stop playing games with energy supplies.
Although only some countries in the world had significant supplies of carbon-based fuels, all countries had some supplies of sun and wind; others had access to tides and rivers. It was these natural resources that should be exploited to solve the energy crisis. Thirty years ago Italy had decided not to invest in nuclear power. That issue had now been re-opened.
Italy was in a new phase. It did not have nuclear power but was surrounded by countries that did and often the power plants were not far from the Italian border. Many countries now met a significant proportion of their energy needs with nuclear power and he considered that this was the correct way forward in terms of safety and security of supply. Italy was about to enact a new law which would lead to the adoption of nuclear power in Italy, allowing it to avoid being held to ransom by unscrupulous third parties who were prepared to cut energy exports to other countries.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Santini. I call Mr Sudarenkov.
Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that there were roughly three groups of countries: the first intended to build, or were actually building, new nuclear plants; the second were moving towards a civilian nuclear industry; and the third were those considering giving nuclear power a second chance. There had been much debate around the issue of nuclear power. Looking at the long-term prospects, there was some promising new technology, such as that being pioneered in the Russian Federation. The report linked the use of nuclear power to the ability of member states to meet multilateral and international climate change targets. In order to make this vision a reality, however, it was vital to train personnel on a large scale. The Russian Federation had significant nuclear know-how but, even here, more training was needed.
There were two further issues which needed to be addressed. First, there was still the possibility of an accident at a nuclear power plant, so safety should be enhanced. Secondly, energy saving as a means of addressing the world’s energy needs from the demand-side had been mooted by the World Bank as long as 20 years ago but it had proved to be a difficult message to spread. Much more work was needed here in developing and enforcing energy quotas.
Finally, non-proliferation was still a live issue and there had to be restrictions on the export of nuclear technologies. The Russian Federation wished to set up a series of centres to provide services to third countries, including waste disposal services meeting IAEA standards.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Sudarenkov. I call Mrs Papadopoulos.
Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – The restructuring of our energy systems necessitates less consumption of fossil fuels, the full development of all forms of renewable energies, intensive research and development into new nuclear technologies and the effective implementation of the results of that research.
It is true that nuclear electricity generation has been a very controversial issue. Today, however, there is a growing interest in nuclear energy. This can be attributed to increasing oil prices, the negative consequences of the energy crisis on national economies and societies, and increasing concern about climate change and its impact on sustainable development.
Nuclear electricity generation permits a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when compared with the burning of fossil fuels, which increases it. Nuclear energy can mitigate the effects of climate change, thus attaining the goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol targets for the reduction of emissions. Moreover, it provides an answer to rising oil prices and Europe’s heavy dependency on Russia’s gas market, as well as to the problem of sustaining uninterrupted oil supply routes from politically unstable regions in the Middle East and the Gulf.
All these considerations are providing many countries with the impetus to reconsider their widely differing policies on nuclear energy, which today represents 17% of all electricity generation worldwide. Countries such as Finland, France, Russia, China, India, Japan and the USA either intend to build or already have built new nuclear power plants. Japan aims to meet more than 40% of her energy needs by 2030 through the exclusive use of nuclear energy. Several Council of Europe member states, including Poland, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and the Baltic states, intend to extend the lifespan of their already existing power plants.
Tragic accidents and other past experiences have set the parameters for both the present and the future of nuclear electricity generation. It is of paramount importance to address the issues at stake and ensure that three conditions are met. These are energy security, economic growth and environmental protection. Existing practices, energy infrastructure and staff training must be updated and developed so as to ensure the security and safety of both nuclear materials and facilities. New rules governing this energy market must replace obsolete practices and be continuously updated. People must have access to transparent information on electricity generating processes and safety measures.
In addition, the global state of affairs today necessitates the creation of an international nuclear fuel recycling centre under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure environmental protection and optimal management of nuclear waste; increased international co-operation and transparency in the civil nuclear industry, and strong support of research and development in nuclear technology, as well as the adoption of safe protection standards.
Mutual dependence and the global nature of the international oil market call for serious joint reviews of safety rules and extensive parliamentary scrutiny of the future of nuclear energy. Of all innovative energy technologies, nuclear energy appears the most feasible option to lead energy production in the 21st century. However, it must be used wisely, for the benefit of humankind, at the lowest possible cost and with no gas emissions. Peaceful nuclear programmes must aim at reducing poverty and ensure long-term energy sustainability in developing countries.
We, as parliamentarians, must bring together all the different points of view and ensure that energy security, economic growth and environmental protection constitute the essential elements of nuclear generation programmes.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call next Mr Fischer.
Mr FISCHER (Germany) said that a safe, clean and economical method of energy generation was needed. At a time of economic crisis in Europe there was no room for dreaming when energy generation plants constituted a serious financial burden for people throughout Europe. It was imperative to waste neither money nor resources and, for this reason, he welcomed the resolution’s reference to nuclear energy.
He congratulated the rapporteur on a report which discussed opportunities, action and sustainable development. He also drew hope from the fact that his German colleague, Mr Steenblock, of the Green Party, had been involved in the drafting of a report which tackled such important issues. The development of renewable energy sources was essential in order to provide economic, safe and sustainable energy and to meet climate change targets. Some countries, such as Canada and Switzerland, had demonstrated that it was possible to generate a high proportion of their energy requirement from renewable energy sources. It was necessary to consider the costs involved, the supply of raw materials and the quantity and character of the natural resources available. Major progress had been made in terms of research and this was proof that investment in this sector had been wise. Direct subsidy by the state, however, might not always be appropriate. He called on the Assembly to support these reports.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Kallio.
Mr KALLIO (Finland). – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their topical reports. The challenge of climate change, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, needs to be tackled effectively and urgently. If we are to save our planet, we must take immediate action to cut emissions.
Nowadays, the political consensus is to encourage an energy mix, with different sources of supply playing a role. That makes sense if we are to meet the growing demand for energy and to preserve our environment. Cleanliness, security of supply, efficiency and affordability are the key energy challenges.
Nuclear power is a carbon-free source of electricity generation with a large and diversified fuel resource base. In my opinion, nuclear energy is part of the solution, together with renewable energy sources and carbon capture. Today, Finland is one of the countries where a nuclear power plant is under construction. Finland is increasing nuclear power, while at the same time increasing the use of renewables. In Finland, 28.5% of total energy is produced by renewables and, by 2020, we hope the figure will be 38%. That is a big challenge.
Of course, like any other energy source and technology, nuclear energy has advantages and drawbacks. One advantage enjoyed by nuclear power plant operators is security of supply. Uranium is plentiful and well distributed throughout the planet. The geopolitical distribution of uranium producers, which include countries such as Australia and Canada, greatly reduces the risk of the kind of market disruption experienced during the oil crisis. There are economic arguments too. Low and stable marginal production costs are a key advantage, particularly in liberalised markets.
The main concerns about nuclear energy are safety, waste management and disposal. I think that safe disposal of radioactive waste is feasible. The final disposal of nuclear waste in bedrock is Finland’s solution. Spent nuclear fuel from Finland’s nuclear power plants is packed in copper canisters and embedded in bedrock at a depth of approximately 400 m.
Energy policy is a crucial element of the global strategy for climate change. In this strategy, nuclear power, renewable energy sources, such as hydro-power, wind power, solar power, biomass and energy efficient technologies, play an important role. To save our planet, we need an energy mix that minimises greenhouse gas emissions.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Our last speaker will be Mr Rouquet.
Mr ROUQUET (France) said that the move to renewable energy was urgent if we wanted to preserve our environment which was under threat. Geothermal power had tremendous potential. In the report that he had previously prepared for the Assembly, he had stressed the importance of geothermal power. As it did not depend on climatic conditions, as solar and wind power did, geothermal power offered a potential for stable renewable energy, particularly renewably sourced heat.
One of the recommendations in the report was to establish an International Renewable Energy Agency. This was important because there were not enough companies capable of installing renewable energy equipment. For example, there were very few companies able to install solar photovoltaic cells. At the European level, such an agency could help companies to move to renewables. It was necessary, as the report said, for governments to act to ensure that the public had access to renewable energy.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Rouquet.
I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report.
I call Mr Le Grand, rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr LE GRAND (France) said that there had been a lot of agreement over these proposals. It was right to link renewable energy and nuclear power together. Energy efficiency was also important. The Assembly could look to pan-European agencies to promote energy efficiency but it was not only a matter for political action – individual behaviour also had to change. Furthermore, there were possible technological solutions to the problem.
In the area of research and development, resources must be pooled. The sooner this was done, the sooner solutions to the world’s energy needs would be found. This was urgent and had to be started now. The cost implications of renewable energy also had to be researched.
We had to solve problems of security of supply and human migration caused by climate change and energy problems. Autonomy and security of supply were essential if we wanted to avoid further crises. The challenges posed by energy demand, by energy supply and by climate change were political, but not party political.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Le Grand. I call the next rapporteur, Mr Etherington, to reply. You have seven minutes.
Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – I thank everyone who has spoken – it has been an extremely interesting debate, and I really have enjoyed it. There are certain aspects that are a bit depressing, because the subject itself can be a bit depressing, as there never ever seems to be a simple, straightforward answer, as with so many things in politics.
I cannot refer to everyone who has spoken, because I do not have time, but Mr Eörsi spoke about what will happen next winter. That is the gist of the problem: we must, whatever we do, ensure that we continue to have an energy supply. If we cannot ensure the continuation of that energy supply and start having power cuts, we really will have a problem. Many of these discussions and the opinions that have been expressed are about security of supply. It is about the danger of what is going to happen and where our gas is coming from. Our colleague from Italy said that after 30 years of being anti-nuclear, he was reconsidering his position because he was not terribly sure about the supply of gas. I must give credit where it is due. My colleagues in Britain who have been involved over many years will know that we have always had a pretty diverse generation system there. We have never ever relied on any one particular fuel. We have always had a mix, and that mix has become greater as we get more and more renewable energy.
I must try to reply to something that was a bit of a puzzle. My colleague, Mr Díaz Tejera, asked about three different problems and whether there was a linkage. He was not sure, and neither am I. He also asked why there has not been more investment in things like renewables. I can only give him a personal view. Coal first, oil next, gas later: they have always been cheap. We have always had to increase their production, so that is why there was major investment in them. No one wants to invest in things that seem to be expensive when there is not much in the way of a return. However, there is going to be no choice in future.
Similarly, nuclear power had a tremendous advantage as far as investment goes, because initially it was about armaments and there was no relaxation in that investment. Mr Díaz Tejera made a perfectly good point, and people should have been asking that question. The real answer to it is that we have all been far too slow in realising how big the problems of carbon dioxide emissions, of the running down of fossil fuels and of the nuclear industry were. Our slowness has resulted in the lack of investment. He also said that the Assembly will need to return to this issue again, and I am sure he is right. I see no other alternative.
My colleague, Mrs Stump, from Switzerland, made the point, at some length that nuclear power was not sustainable and that there was a problem with waste. I must agree with what she said, because those were two of the main points made in my report. Mrs Lundgren also said that nuclear power was not a long-term solution, and I agree with her. Mrs Petir made the very good point – we should be honest enough to say that few of us have thought much about it – that the effects of the damage being done by the burning of fossil fuels has not been fully recognised. I totally agree with that, and I suspect that most of us have not given the matter a lot of thought. Mr Sudarenkov rightly says that the report should have referred to the possibility of accidents and how we deal with them. We have had accidents, and perhaps we need to address that area at some future date, perhaps through a separate report, in which we could offer our advice.
Once again, I thank you all for your attention. It has been a great pleasure to give a joint report with my colleague, because her presence has brought a lot of variety into the process. We have heard about almost every aspect of energy that there is. Our discussion has been incredibly varied. I hope that the Assembly will support both reports.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Etherington. Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Meale, wish to speak? You have two minutes.
Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – Yes, I do, Mr President, because it would be entirely remiss of me not to take the opportunity to respond. This fantastic debate has shown that the recent work that the Council of Europe has been doing on the environment is beginning to get the message across. Ten years ago, when I first came to this establishment, it was difficult to get any consultation or debate going on the environment. Three or four of us used to sit in rooms to debate how serious the matter was and we could not get anyone to agree to make it a mainstay of our agenda, whereas this week we could not get enough seats in the room to accommodate the people who tried to attend our meetings.
Despite the fact that we are getting near the end of today’s proceedings, more than a score of speakers have contributed to this debate. I note that we are, again, considering this matter late in our proceedings but hope that we can get an earlier time for such debates in future. Even though we are getting the opportunity to debate the environment near the end of the week, 13 speakers from different nations have participated. If we had had more time available to us, more people would be in this room debating this issue.
Mrs Lundgren said that people are beginning to realise that we have only one world. That truth is demonstrated by the type of arguments that have been advanced about the environment. Mr Eőrsi is not very popular today, although it would be unkind to blame him for everything, because he slightly played the role of devil’s advocate and he was trying to get the debate going. I understand what he was trying to achieve. Let me make it clear that neither of these reports is anti-nuclear, as Bill Etherington said. They are trying to show all the different varieties of energy that are available and to discuss a common mix. I thank all the speakers and all the rapporteurs, as well as Mrs Lilliehőők, the chair of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, who has come to offer her opinion today. Most of all, however, I thank the members and the civil servants who have helped us to produce these two excellent documents.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
The debate is now closed.
The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs has presented a draft recommendation on its report on renewable energies and the environment, to which four amendments have been tabled.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs , should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.
The amendments are Nos. 2 and 3 to the draft recommendation.
Is that so Mr Meale?
Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. – I must inform the Assembly that this rule states that, if no Assembly Member objects, the amendments which I have listed, and which have been unanimously approved by the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly.
Does anyone object? That is not the case.
The following amendments have been adopted:
Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mrs Francine John-Calame, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Felix Müri, Mrs Pernille Frahm and Mr Jean Huss, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 9.10, add the following sub-paragraph: “promote research in order to develop new renewable energies and improve the efficiency of existing ones.”
Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mrs Francine John-Calame, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Felix Müri, Mrs Pernille Frahm and Mr Jean Huss, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 9.10, add the following sub-paragraph: “arrange and offer appropriate in-service training for professionals involved in installing and maintaining these new technologies.”
We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft recommendation. They will be taken in the order in which they affect the text, namely Amendment No. 1 with a sub-amendment, then Amendment No. 4.
We now come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Francine John-Calame, Mr Felix Müri, Mrs Pernille Frahm, Mr Andreas Gross and Mr Jean Huss, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.4, replace the words “agrofuels in order to ensure their competitiveness with fossil fuels in the transition period until broad market penetration has been achieved, thus giving a fresh impetus to the agricultural sector” with the following words: “second-generation agrofuels in order to ensure their competitiveness with fossil fuels in the transition period until broad market penetration has been achieved”.
If this amendment is adopted, Amendment No. 4 will fall.
I call Mrs John-Calame to support the amendment.
Mrs JOHN-CALAME (Switzerland) said that the amendment clarified that biofuels were not in competition with food growth.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Le Grand to support sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local Affairs.
Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Jean-François Le Grand, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is, in Amendment No. 1, replace the words “second-generation agrofuels” with the following words: “agrofuels of the second and subsequent generations”.
Mr Le GRAND (France). – said that the sub-amendment strengthened the effect of provisions already in the recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
Mrs JOHN-CALAME (Switzerland) said that she was relaxed about it.
THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to a vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment No. 1, as amended, is adopted.
Amendment No. 4 therefore falls.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 11918, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Doc. 11918, as amended, is adopted, with 58 votes for, 0 against and 2 abstentions (Recommendation 1879).
The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development has presented a draft resolution on its report on nuclear energy and Sustainable Development, to which five amendments have been tabled. I understand that the chairperson of the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.10.
The amendments are Nos. 1 and 2 to the draft resolution.
Is that so Mr Meale?
Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. – I must inform the Assembly that this rule states that, if no Assembly member objects, the amendments which I have listed, and which have been unanimously approved by the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs shall be declared to have been adopted by the Assembly.
Does anyone object?
There is no objection.
The following amendments have been adopted:
Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Aleksei Lotman, Mrs Pernille Frahm, Mr Alexander Van Der Bellen, Mrs Francine John-Calame, Ms Lilja Mósesdóttir, Mrs Kerstin Lundgren, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Mr Paul Lempens, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Aristophanes Georgiou and Mr Rainder Steenblock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the words “renewable energy”, insert the following words: “and energy saving”.
Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Aleksei Lotman, Ms Lilja Mósesdóttir, Mrs Francine John-Calame, Mr Alexander Van Der Bellen, Mrs Pernille Frahm, Mr Paul Lempens, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Aristophanes Georgiou and Mr Rainder Steenblock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, replace the words “The Assembly is convinced that in the short to medium term nuclear power could be of great benefit to the environment because it has an important role to play in mitigating the effects of climate change. However” with the following word: “Moreover”.
We will now consider the rest of the amendments to the draft resolution in the order in which they affect the text, namely 3, 4 and 5.
We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Aleksei Lotman, Ms Lilja Mósesdóttir, Mrs Francine John-Calame, Mr Alexander Van Der Bellen, Mrs Pernille Frahm, Mrs Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Aristophanes Georgiou and Mr Rainder Steenblock, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 9 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly underlines that the development of the nuclear industry must be accompanied by the development of energy infrastructure and staff training.”
I call Mr Lotman to support Amendment No. 3. You have 30 seconds.
Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – Paragraph 9 discusses the needs of developing countries. We know that there have been severe safety problems in developing countries and elsewhere. The amendment states that infrastructure, staff training and safety are important in all countries that use nuclear energy.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Etherington.
Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – This amendment was dealt with by the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, where it was turned down, because we think that the original wording is better.
THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 3 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Aleksei Lotman, Ms Lilja Mósesdóttir, Mrs Francine John-Calame, Mr Alexander Van Der Bellen, Mrs Pernille Frahm, Mrs Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Tiny Kox and Mr Rainder Steenblock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, first sentence, before the word “technologies”, to insert the following word:
“weapon”.
I call Mr Lotman to support Amendment No. 4. You have 30 seconds.
Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – We all know that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are twin brothers, which is why we are concerned about the development of nuclear energy in Iran. Let us not be overly optimistic. The danger is nuclear weapons technology spreading, and that point must be explicitly stated.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Etherington.
Mr ETHERINGTON (United Kingdom). – This report has nothing whatsoever to do with weapons. It purely concerns civil nuclear power. The amendment would merely create confusion and introduce another aspect that the report does not need.
THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 4 is rejected.
I understand that Mr Lotman wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – I agreed that in committee in order to make more rapid progress.
THE PRESIDENT. – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 11914, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Doc. 11914, as amended, is adopted with 47 votes for, 11 against and 2 abstentions (Resolution 1679.
5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly holds its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday.
Are there any objections? That is not the case.
I remind the Assembly that we have agreed that speaking times for tomorrow morning will be limited to four minutes.
The agenda for the next sitting is therefore agreed.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 6.30 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Minutes of proceedings
2. Organisation of debates
3. The funding of public service broadcasting
Presentation by Mr Laukkanen of report of the Committee on Culture, Science
and Education (Doc. 11848)
Presentation by Mr MacShane of opinion of the Political Affairs Committee
(Doc. 11915)
Speakers:
Mr Wach (Poland)
Mrs Barnett (Germany)
Ms Keaveney (Ireland)
Mr Kumcuoğlu (Turkey)
Mr Lecoq (France)
Mrs Bergamini (Italy)
Mr Flego (Croatia)
Mr Badea (Romania)
Mr Walter (United Kingdom)
Mrs Rihter (Slovenia)
Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)
Mr Anghel (Romania)
Replies:
Mr Laukkanen (Finland)
Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 9, 11, 1, 14, 12, 2, 5 as amended, 10 as amended and 13 as amended to the draft recommendation adopted
Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted
4.: Renewable energies and the environment/Nuclear energy and sustainable development – joint debate
Presentation by Mr Le Grand of report of the Committee on the Environment,
Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (Doc. 11918)
Presentation by Mr Etherington of report of the Committee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (Doc. 11914)
Presentation by Mrs Lilliehöök of opinion of the Committee on Economic
Affairs and Development (Doc. 11961)
Speakers:
Mrs John-Calame (Switzerland)
Mr Giaretta (Italy)
Mr Evans (United Kingdom)
Mr Lotman (Estonia)
Mr Sasi (Finland)
Mr Frécon (France)
Mr Grignon (France)
Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)
Mr Eörsi (Hungary)
Mrs Stump (Switzerland)
Mrs Lundgren (Sweden)
Mr Volonte' (Italy)
Mrs Petir (Croatia)
Mr Santini (Italy)
Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)
Mrs Papadopoulos (Cyprus)
Mr Fischer (Germany)
Mr Kallio (Finland)
Mr Rouquet (France)
Replies:
Mr Le Grand (France)
Mr Etherington (United Kingdom)
Mr Meale (United Kingdom)
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 1 as amended, to Doc. 11918 adopted
Draft recommendation in Doc. 11918, as amended, adopted
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to Doc. 11914 adopted
Draft resolution in Doc. 11914, as amended, adopted
5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting