2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-second Sitting

Wednesday 1 October 2008 at 10 a.m.

Link to the voting results

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

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

1. Organisation of debates

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I must inform the Assembly that the business today is very full, with a large number of delegates wishing to speak in the four debates and a great many amendments tabled.

We have previously agreed to limit the speaking time in the debate on the situation in Cyprus to three minutes. In view of the time available and the number of speakers on the list, I propose that three minutes also be the speaking time in all other debates today.

       Is that agreed to?

It is agreed to.

2. Statement by Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, Leader of the Turkish Cypriot community

THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of a statement from Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, Leader of the Turkish Cypriot community.

      Mr Talat, since your appointment as the chief negotiator for the Turkish Cypriot community in 2004, despite all setbacks and disappointments, you have been firmly committed to, and tirelessly worked for, the settlement of the “Cyprus problem”. Today, thanks to your efforts and the efforts of President Christofias, there is a new hope of a reunited Cyprus.

      Ever since the outbreak of the conflict in Cyprus, the Assembly has sought to contribute to dialogue and reconciliation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Following the referendum on the Annan plan in 2004, when Turkish Cypriots clearly chose Europe, the Assembly was the first major European body to associate elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community with its activities.

      We wish you success, and we are ready to support the process by all means. We look forward to welcoming our Turkish Cypriot colleagues as fully fledged members of the parliamentary delegation of a reunited Cyprus. Mr Talat, you have the floor.

      Mr TALAT (Leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community) (Translation). – First, I wish to thank the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr de Puig, for inviting me to this august body. I salute you on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot people. As the elected leader of the Turkish Cypriot people, I am pleased to address you, and I regard this opportunity as a demonstration of your appreciation of the Turkish Cypriot people.

      Today is Eid Ramadan, a holy occasion for the Islamic world. On this day, I wish to greet the Turkish Cypriot people and the whole Islamic world, and to wish humanity peace and happiness.

      The Turkish Cypriots are a modern people worthy of your consideration and support. Turkish Cypriots have embraced the highest human values, and believe in and fight for human rights, the rule of law, social justice and democratic development. Although the Turkish Cypriot people have been the victims of the Cyprus problem for many years now, they have displayed a determined attitude and taken action to solve the problem, without being enslaved by any feelings of revenge.

      The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is the first international parliament to accept the elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot people under its roof. Taking in consideration our yes vote for the United Nations comprehensive settlement plan aimed at solving the Cyprus problem, this Assembly has, since 2005, provided us with a window in our long-lasting political isolation. Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians have been able to step into the international arena thanks to this Assembly.

      The Cyprus problem is a problem of the cohabitation of two peoples on a small island. Unfortunately, I cannot say that we have been successful in that cohabitation. However, I should say that the responsibility of the Turkish Cypriot people – who make up 20% of the island’s population despite their separate political identity – in the creation and continuation of this problem, is very small compared to the responsibility of other actors. The Turkish Cypriot people have had a single desire since the 1950s, and that is to participate in the governance of the island of Cyprus in a way that would allow them to determine their own future.

      I am aware that Turkey is portrayed as the perpetrator of the Cyprus problem in many speeches in this very room. However, when Turkey was forced to intervene in the island in 1974, the Cyprus problem was already there. The representatives of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot peoples had begun talks in 1968 about how they could solve the problem resulting from the Greek Cypriots’ hijacking of the 1960 partnership republic in 1963. However, when the illegal Greek Cypriot armed forces, which had the support of the military junta in Greece, staged a coup against their own administrators and prepared to declare Enosis, Turkey was forced to send troops to the island in fulfilment of its responsibilities stemming from international agreements. Turkey had proposed to intervene together with Britain, which was another guarantor country, but was rejected and had to fulfil that duty on its own.

      Because of this problem, the Turkish Cypriot people have been unable to take their honourable place among the free people of the world, and to establish adequate and effective relations with the world. We have spent our childhood and adolescence on a volcano ready to erupt at any minute. Now, we are concerned with rendering secure the future of our children. And for this, we regard the establishment of a lasting peace in Cyprus as an urgent humanitarian issue.

      The fact that we have not been able to achieve a solution and peace despite changing world conditions has greatly complicated the political aspects of the problem, and has imposed on the issue the burden of decisions and attitudes of a bipolar world. In fact, United Nations resolutions on the issue since 1964, and the attitudes that emerged immediately after 1974, still have a huge influence today.

      The Turkish Cypriot people are able to deal with the difficulties imposed on them by the lack of a solution by leaning especially on the contributions of the Republic of Turkey. Turkey has been the main supporter of the Turkish Cypriot people and we are rightly grateful to the Republic of Turkey and to the Turkish people to whom we are related through historic and cultural bonds. Thanks to Turkey’s support, the Turkish Cypriot people can benefit from state and postal services, establish telephone connections with the world, and travel. If Turkey had banned direct flights, as other states have, I would have been imprisoned in Northern Cyprus, instead of being here. In fact, if not for the support from Turkey, there would be no Turkish Cypriot leader speaking to you as there would be no Turkish Cypriots left in Cyprus. Leaving aside the details of the problem, that is how you should view the support that Turkey gives us.

      The United Nations comprehensive settlement plan, which was put in separate referendums to the two peoples in 2004, was the best opportunity that we ever had to solve the Cyprus problem. The Turkish Cypriot people, by saying yes to the plan, showed that they want a solution. Unfortunately, the opportunity was wasted when the Greek Cypriot people voted no, due to the inconceivable efforts and encouragement of the then Greek Cypriot leadership and its political supporters. I do not have the authority to question the free will of the Greek Cypriot people. However, I cannot forget the state-led no campaign against the comprehensive settlement plan and the negative role played by the Greek Cypriot leadership, namely the leader at the time, Mr Tassos Papadopoulos, and today’s Greek Cypriot leader and my dear friend, Mr Demetris Christofias.

      The Turkish Cypriot people are, as always, ready and working for an early, comprehensive and just solution to the Cyprus problem. The party that needs to contribute to the process and prove that it wants a solution is the Greek Cypriot side.

      The pro-solution stance of the Turkish Cypriot people continues, despite our disappointment in April 2004. After that time, we tried very hard to reinitiate solution negotiations based on the comprehensive settlement plan. We called on the whole world to support us in that regard. We gave voice to that attitude on every platform. The former Greek Cypriot leader Mr Papadopoulos persistently avoided that. He announced to the whole world from the United Nations platform, which is the symbol of the freedom of people, that he was pursuing the policy of osmosis, which was intended to absorb and dissolve the Turkish Cypriot people into his administration, instead of attempting to find a comprehensive solution through negotiations.

      Mr Papadopoulos’ osmosis policy did not find support in the world. Even the Greek Cypriot people became uneasy with it and, in February 2008, they replaced Mr Papadopoulos with Mr Christofias. Now, we have a new process. My dear friend Mr Christofias took over the Greek Cypriot leadership and said that he would pursue a policy of solution and negotiation. We were, of course, pleased and we immediately settled down to work.

      We do have various difficulties. However, those difficulties do not emanate from Turkey, as argued by Mr Christofias. They emanate from the fact that the Greek Cypriot side is reluctant to share the sovereignty of Cyprus with the Turkish Cypriot people.

      I showed a great deal of flexibility so that the Greek Cypriot side sits at the table for comprehensive solution negotiations and, in order to bring that about, and to strengthen Mr Christofias, I gave my approval to joint statements that fulfilled their demand to create a “common language”, although that was not part of our procedural agreement signed on 21 March.

Today, I regard the initiation of comprehensive settlement negotiations as a great improvement, but I have to say that the main obstacle to further progress is the reluctance of the Greek Cypriot side to give effect to political equality for Turkish Cypriots.

      As the Turkish Cypriot side, we want to establish a new partnership state in Cyprus, based on the political equality of the two peoples, which is composed of two constituent states of equal status. We believe that Cyprus could be unified under such a framework and that we can stand before the world with a single international identity.

      Although Cyprus has been accepted into the European Union in an unfair manner and without the approval of the Turkish Cypriot people, all our political forces agree that the new partnership state will be a member of the EU. I believe that the new partnership state can be shaped by remaining true to the founding principles of the EU. Nevertheless, through certain derogations, the Turkish Cypriot people can be protected from threats stemming from historic problems or mistrust.

      We ask for your help to formulate such a structure and to bury the Cyprus problem in the past. We would like to ensure that the Cyprus problem does not recur in the present day.

      Please allow me to convey to you my observations on the report entitled “Situation in Cyprus”, prepared by Mr Joachim Hörster, the political affairs rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as my observations on the draft resolution.

      First, I thank you for allowing two of our elected representatives to participate in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly in line with Assembly Resolution 1376, which contributes to the easing of the political isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

      On the other hand, we are expecting the urgent implementation of Resolution 170 of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, passed in 2004, which states that representatives of Turkish Cypriot local authorities should be represented in the Congress, as in the Parliamentary Assembly.

      Again, the Assembly, in Resolution 1376, called for an end to the Turkish Cypriots’ international isolation. We regretfully observe that the isolation of Turkish Cypriot people persists, despite the existence of such a resolution passed by an institution that is the cradle of democracy.

      Only a week ago, the Greek Cypriot side arrested a Syrian captain for coming to Turkish Cypriot ports and once again showed how rigid it is in its policy of isolation.

      The draft resolution talks only about the ban on Greek Cypriot-flagged ships entering ports in Turkey. We see that the repeated call of the Turkish Cypriot side simultaneously to lift all restrictions on the island and the action plan proposed by the Republic of Turkey in that regard have not been included in the draft resolution. We expect the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to support proposals that would contribute to the solution of the Cyprus problem, as part of an attitude that would encourage mutual co-operation, stability and efforts based on mutual advantage, instead of supporting unilateral initiatives.

      We are disappointed by the fact that the draft resolution also includes Greek Cypriot claims that they help Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot side uses that argument as a means of propaganda and political exploitation to prove its claims that Turkish Cypriots are not isolated.

Since the Turkish Cypriot side launched an international initiative for the lifting of isolation and the world reacted positively, the Greek Cypriot administration has been claiming that it provides Turkish Cypriots with free electricity, although it is paid for, and has been presenting the salaries of people who work in south Cyprus as “aid to Turkish Cypriots”.

      The Cyprus problem has given rise to a property issue. I would like to remind you that, as the Turkish Cypriot side, we have established the Immovable Property Commission in accordance with the recommendations and suggestions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Accordingly, as an interim measure for those property owners who are unable to wait until a comprehensive solution is brought about, we have accepted as a domestic remedy the options of partial restitution, exchange and compensation, and implemented them. The establishment of the commission has unburdened the European Court of Human Rights of some of its extensive work load.

      The property issue, which has been the subject of, especially, post-war mandatory regulations, has become a problem for many countries, including European states. There are many current examples of this problem in the world. Our main target would be to share each other’s experiences concerning that issue and to reach a solution and peace through an agreement that included arrangements that did not force our people to emigrate yet again.

      Reaching a comprehensive solution in Cyprus and rendering that solution sustainable are related to how the young generations on both sides of the island view one another. I can tell you with pleasure that our Minister of Education has reviewed the textbooks being used in schools in accordance with the principles and recommendations of the Council of Europe.

We are expecting the Greek Cypriot side to take action at once and to eliminate language in their own textbooks that incites enmity and hatred against the Turkish Cypriots. We expect the Council of Europe to encourage and embolden the Greek Cypriot side in that regard.

      As the Turkish Cypriot side, we view all the cultural monuments in Northern Cyprus as a common heritage of humanity, regardless of their origin, and try to preserve them with scarce resources, without any international aid. I call on you today to support us in our efforts to preserve cultural heritage. In that regard, I bring to your attention the fact that Turkish-Islamic cultural monuments exist on the Greek Cypriot side. They are in need of preservation and the Council of Europe’s special interest.

      Education in one’s own mother tongue is one of the basic human rights. As the Turkish Cypriot side, we have provided the Greek Cypriot children living in Northern Cyprus with the opportunity to receive uninterrupted elementary and secondary school education in their mother tongues, from Greek Cypriot teachers and in line with the Greek Cypriot curriculum. In addition, that issue was taken up and closed by the Committee of Ministers.

      On the other hand, it is very saddening that a similar opportunity has not been offered to the Turkish Cypriot students living in the town of Limassol in southern Cyprus, who outnumber Greek Cypriot students living in the north. You should encourage the Greek Cypriot side to remain true to its written and oral promises to the United Nations that it will establish a separate school for Turkish Cypriot students and provide those children with education in their mother tongue, which is one of the basic human rights.

      The issue of missing persons did not emerge in 1974 and it does not concern only Greek Cypriots. Hundreds of Turkish Cypriot civilians were kidnapped on the way home or to work between 1963 and 1974, and have gone missing. It is a disappointment to see that that humanitarian issue has been portrayed as a problem that concerns only Greek Cypriots and that justice is demanded only on their behalf.

      Amendments adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights further consolidated the one-sidedness of the draft resolution. Accepting a resolution that includes such negative and unilateral elements when comprehensive negotiations are ongoing on the island would definitely not make a positive contribution, either to the solution efforts being striven for by the Secretary-General of the United Nations or to the efforts to create a positive atmosphere.

      The Turkish Cypriot people face political, economic and social isolation. The most important effect of this isolation is that Turkish Cypriots are unable to voice their political views in the international arena. Developments in Cyprus are, most of the time, brought to the attention of the world unilaterally and in a way that does not reflect reality. At the end of the day, this distortion contributes to the non-solution in Cyprus.

      First of all, we call on the world to preserve our right to express ourselves. Your noble parliament has safeguarded this right. Although I see that many problems and developments have not been apprehended in a realistic way in the report about the Cyprus problem and what is happening on the island, I am grateful to you for safeguarding the Turkish Cypriot people’s right to express themselves and for showing the generosity of listening to what we have to say.

      The Annan plan, which was strongly endorsed by the United Nations and the European Union, as well as the entire international community, including the Council of Europe, was approved by the Turkish Cypriots and rejected by the Greek Cypriots. Following this, and despite Resolution 1376, adopted by you to lift the isolation, the current draft resolution before us contradicts the expressed will of the Assembly. The adoption of the draft resolution will create disappointment among my people.

      I wholeheartedly thank you, Mr President, for granting us this opportunity, and I sincerely hope that your efforts will contribute to world peace.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Talat, for your speech, for your information and for your analysis. We know the difficulties of this process, some of which you have described. This is not an easy process, but with the proposals that Mr Christofias made yesterday and those that you have made today, we can be confident that the process is a good one. We – the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole – will be at your sides in this process that you and Mr Christofias have chosen. Perhaps one day, not too much longer now, we can have parliamentarians from the Turkish Cypriot side here with us. Thank you very much, Mr Talat.

3. Situation in Cyprus

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report on the situation in Cyprus presented by Mr Hörster on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11699, followed by an opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11727, presented by Mr Cilevičs, rapporteur.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 7 p.m. yesterday. Thirty-four amendments have been tabled. I remind the Assembly that we agreed yesterday that the speaking time in this debate should be limited to three minutes and to conclude the debate at 12.20 p.m. I must also inform you that I propose to interrupt the speakers list at about 11.10 a.m. in order to allow time for replies and votes.

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

Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) said that it was a pity that Mr Talat had had to leave before he could hear Mr Hörster’s comments. He had been the rapporteur on this subject since April 2006 and it was clear that it was a very difficult situation. He had been in contact with the delegation from the Republic of Cyprus and the representatives and observers from the Turkish side.

The division of Cyprus in 1974 had caused a lot of unrest. The attempt in 2004 to overcome this division had failed and led to mutual mistrust and hatred. Since then, further attempts at reconciliation had been unsuccessful. The committee had maintained close contact with the Cyprus delegation and the Turkish representatives. The committee had waited until the presidential election in 2008, in which President Christofias had been victorious, to visit Cyprus. There had been some progress in March 2008, when there had been discussions between President Christofias and Mr Talat. The report had further detail about these negotiations on pages 6, 7 and 11 to 13. The Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides both agreed to the fact-finding mission that took place on 15 and 19 June, described on pages 11 to 13 of the report. The visiting delegation had met representatives from NGOs and public life. The assessment of the prospects for progress in the situation on the island had been optimistic at that time. Mr Talat had not seemed optimistic today. On previous occasions he had been more optimistic.

Several basic principles underlay the report. There was no description or assessment of the past because this would have caused difficulty in the Assembly. It was important not to undermine negotiations between Mr Talat and Mr Christofias. The Assembly was not concerned with the broader matter of borders. The position of the Republic of Cyprus was a matter of international law and was consistently defended in the report. The committee did not wish to change the status of the republic. The Assembly had to work within the confines of international law. It had to provide support in areas in which it had expertise and now become involved in areas where the United Nations had capability.

      An important issue was the relationship between young Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots: 20% of Greek Cypriots under 35 had not had any contact with Turkish Cypriots on the north side of the island.

Many such young people had had no contact with the other community and efforts needed to be made to bring the two together. However, it had to be recognised that this was a Cypriot issue, and the communities should decide how best to deal with the matter. Their right to self-determination should be recognised.

      The report indicated that a solution might be found, and provided great hope for a rapprochement between the two peoples. The support of the Council of Europe would assist in the endeavour of bringing both sides together.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. You have five minutes left for the replies. I now call Mr Cilevičs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – On behalf of the committee, I congratulate Mr Hörster on his report and express our support for the report and the draft resolution. The committee considered it necessary to table several amendments that are aimed primarily at enhancing references to the legal framework. Legal accuracy is needed to avoid different interpretations of what we say. We pay particular attention to the implementation and execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, a sort of ultimate truth in this House. I am sure that respect for international law and the principles of human rights, taking into account EU law, in no way precludes the successful search for flexible and creative solutions to the problems.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Hancock, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – It is difficult in three minutes to do justice to this issue. Many members will struggle to make their points in that time.

What we have heard yesterday and today from our Cypriot colleagues on both sides of the island gives us hope that, for the first time in a very long time, there is genuine intent to work out a solution to the problem. I urge our Turkish colleagues, who have influence in their parliament, to look carefully at what has been said by the two leaders here and take this message to their government: it would be a major step if Turkey looked seriously at trying to work with those two communities to resolve the issue. Without Turkey, that will not happen.

      That is why I am profoundly disappointed by the report. I have a lot of respect for our colleague whose name appears on it, but I do not think that it is as balanced as it should be to address the issues that we face. If we bring together grounds for optimism and compromise, that will facilitate real peace and long-term solutions to all the problems that are highlighted in the report. However, there is a lack of balance.

      I am equally disappointed by the Political Affairs Committee. Some of the amendments that were tabled are fundamental if you genuinely believe in human rights and justice for young people and education. The university in Northern Cyprus is not recognised and cannot enjoy the facilities that others do. The Greek Cypriots cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is one island and then when it comes to education and universities, discriminate against students in the north.

      I was disappointed, when Turkish Cypriots were here, that some members of the Cypriot delegation took offence at their presence and held a mini-demonstration. That is not the way for the Council of Europe to behave. The report is hoping to offer solutions to one of the most difficult of all the problems that the Assembly faces. Cyprus is such a beautiful place. For it to be divided in this way for such a long time is indefensible. Cyprus deserves better and by “Cyprus”, I mean the people of Cyprus, irrespective of their ethnic background.

This Assembly will not be going out of its way to bring those communities together if the report does not include some of the amendments that have been tabled by colleagues here. I hope that, when the Assembly discusses those amendments, the committee will be a little more generous towards the idea of bringing sides together, rather than continuing the divide. Some of the report is destructive and the amendments were introduced to try to bring consensus, not stretch the parties further apart.

      (Mr Kosachev, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Laakso on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – Mr Hörster rightly says that there is a new political situation in Cyprus. It is worth defining why that is. There are two new political leaders and that is the basis of the new political situation. As we know, sometimes, personalities can play an important role in history and there is an opportunity for them to play an important role concerning the reunification of Cyprus.

We know that the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Christofias, has devoted all his life and political career to the reunification of Cyprus. His speech here yesterday was excellent and repeated the initiatives made before the international community, for example, last week in New York. Mr Talat, the leader of the Turkish community in Cyprus, is well known for his constructive attitude towards a solution of the Cyprus problem. However, like the rapporteur, I was a little disappointed by his speech today. I was expecting a response to some of the initiatives made yesterday by President Christofias. Unfortunately, Mr Talat was not able to do that today. I hope that in the near future he will respond to the initiatives that Mr Christofias made.

      The political situation in Cyprus is new because there is now a clear commitment to reach a settlement of the Cyprus problem, which the occupation of the northern part of the island created 34 years ago. There is also a new leadership in Turkey. We know that in Turkey, there are political forces that are against the reunification of Cyprus and that, in the army, there are influential sections that oppose a solution. We need more courage from Turkish leaders than they have shown, for example, in relation to Armenia. Turkey now plays a positive role in many questions in the middle east region, and I hope that the new leadership of Turkey will play a constructive role in the negotiations that take place. Naturally, it is Cypriots themselves who have to find the solution. At this stage, it is not necessary that the international community be actively involved in the negotiations. The solution must be based on the UN Security Council resolution, but Cypriots must reach agreement between themselves. Of course, in the final phase we may also need the help of the international community.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Vareikis, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – Yesterday and today, we heard two speeches from leaders of Cyprus. The President of the Republic, who spoke yesterday, was very optimistic. The leader of the Turkish community, who spoke today, was optimistic as well. Everything seems to be going in the right direction, but the report shows that there is a long list of problems. Unfortunately, what is good for one side is bad for the other. It is probably difficult to write a report that is balanced and satisfactory for everybody. We have a lot of amendments – more than 20 – and they are generally framed according to ethnic lines, not political views. The situation is not as easy as we sometimes want to present it.

Cyprus is always a top priority for the Council of Europe. That is very good news. The Cyprus problem was never frozen – we are always talking about it. That is confirmed by the fact that the community of Northern Cyprus has a seat in this Assembly and we can always consult that community. The problem of Cyprus is not only the problem of communities. When we talk about it we have to decide whether this island country is to divide or to unite. There are islands in the world such as New Guinea and Hispaniola that are divided and nobody takes care of their problems. There are also some that can be kept intact, such as Ireland, Sri Lanka and Cyprus. Why does Cyprus have to be one country, not two countries? There are a lot of arguments. One concerns the size of the country. Another concerns its history – it never has been divided. There is also its geographical position between Europe and Asia – we cannot build an iron curtain there. There is also the European integration issue. If Cyprus is divided, the future of the European Union will not be bright, because we will always say that this is the real limit of Europe.

We have to unite the island but we can never unite people by force. Forced marriages are not a European value. We have to invent a way of unification that is optimistic for both sides. Another bad thing is that the island is divided by force. We have to think seriously about Turkey’s military presence and what we can do about it. We can do a lot on property rights, the infrastructure, personal contacts and heritage. It is possible to do that now without a general solution, so let us start there, and the general solution will come later.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr O’Hara on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr O’HARA (United Kingdom). – I congratulate the rapporteur on what I regard as an open and fair-minded report. This is just the stance which is required at this crucial stage in the search for a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem.

Yesterday, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Demetris Christofias expressed his commitment to negotiate in good faith on the basis of the clear and firm principles that have been enshrined in successive resolutions of the UN Security Council and the founding principles of the European Union. Today, we have had the privilege of hearing also from his fellow negotiator, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Talat. I wish them both well in this enterprise. The most fundamental of the principles to which Mr Christofias referred is that the Republic of Cyprus exists as a legal entity and provides the one and only legal identity for Cyprus and for citizens of all communities on the island.

The experience of the past has led to the evolution of the concept of a bi-zonal, bicommunal republic – a federal republic, but still with one international identity. This requires a strong central government with internal powers devolved to the federated administrations. The UN and the EU support this evolution. The detailed working out of the systems of governance must, however, be left to the Cypriots, led by President Christofias and Mr Talat, and ultimately sanctioned by the people of Cyprus – a solution by the Cypriots for the Cypriots. It is important that the negotiations proceed under the auspices of the United Nations. The EU also has a supportive role to play, for reasons that require no explanation.

My own country, the United Kingdom, has a unique supportive role to play: as a member of the UN Security Council; as a member of the EU; as a fellow member with Cyprus of the Commonwealth of Nations; as a guarantor power of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, which it helped into existence in 1960; and as the possessor of sovereign bases on the island. That land could be used for the benefit of not only the Greek Cypriot community, as the rapporteur points out, but also of the Turkish Cypriot community, to ease the management of a settlement. That offer was made as a concomitant of Annan 5 but fell when Annan 5 was not ratified by referendum. Given good faith on both sides and good omens for an agreed solution, I am confident that my government would look favourably towards renewing this offer to facilitate the process.

Turkey also has a key role to play in supporting and facilitating the negotiation of a solution. It would be of enormous and potent symbolic importance if Turkey would formally recognise the Republic of Cyprus, which is after all a full member of the EU that it aspires to join. If Turkey would open its ports and airports to Cypriot ships and planes, that would facilitate normal trading relations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots with radically beneficial effects for the economy in the north. That would in turn be conducive to the success of a solution.

Turkey should also address the social and political difficulties caused by the presence of a disproportionate number of immigrants from Turkey in Northern Cyprus. They could at least desist from encouraging them to go there. Even better, they could provide incentives for them to return to Turkey. However, the single most potent measure which Turkey could take would be to give a credible commitment to the immediate and progressive reduction of the troops on the island, and to their eventual withdrawal. The psychological effect of that would be incalculable.

Currently, and rightly, President Christofias and Mr Talat are concentrating on issues of governance. However, the impact of any solution which they can agree on the everyday lives of ordinary Cypriots will depend rather on the details to be worked out by the six working parties and seven technical committees mentioned in paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum. The practical expression of these minutiae of daily existence could be demonstrated through a commitment by Turkey to co-operate in the restoration of the ghost town of Varosha and the return to their homes there of its citizens of all communities, to live together, work together, play together, occasionally grieve together, to fall out and make up again – all the things that good neighbours do together.

Once again, I wish President Christofias and Mr Talat well in their negotiations towards an agreed, fair, workable and lasting solution in which all Cypriots of all communities of the island may live together in peace, harmony, prosperity and enjoyment of the blessings with which, as President Christofias reminded us, their beautiful island of Aphrodite is so bountifully endowed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Markov, on behalf of the European Democrat Group. He is not here.

The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Hörster also wish to reply at this stage? That is not the case.

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – This discussion takes place during a very critical time for the Cyprus problem. Fully fledged direct negotiations have begun between the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Christofias, and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Talat, aiming at reaching a solution to the long-standing Cyprus problem – a problem of the invasion and occupation of part of Cyprus by Turkey since 1974. Irrespective of how Mr Talat described it earlier, this is how it is described in all the relevant UN resolutions.

We listened yesterday to the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Christofias, describing his vision for the solution of the Cyprus problem – a solution that will be based on the UN resolutions, the high-level agreement signed by the leaders of the two communities, international law and European and Council of Europe principles. It is a solution that will lead to peace, security, stability and prosperity for all the Cypriot people. Today, we listened to Mr Talat describing his views on the solution. I have to admit that I was disappointed with what I heard. He distorted the historical reality and insisted on positions that are contrary to the UN resolutions and the European and Council of Europe principles that I described earlier. He spoke of the necessity of a solution based on two separate states, but that is not the position of the Council of Europe.

      We have accepted political equality. My party, in particular, has accepted it since 1988. We have accepted political equality as it is described in the UN resolutions, and not the nominal equality accepted by Mr Talat and the Turkish side. It is not us who have isolated the Turkish Cypriot community. The United Nations has adopted two resolutions, 541 and 550, which call on the international community not to recognise a separate state on the island. To end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, we have to end the occupation, and that should be our aim. To bring about a solution, we have to work within the framework of the UN resolutions, and according to European and Council of Europe principles.

      We thank Mr Hörster for his efforts to prepare an objective report. We fully support that report, and above all we support the amendments presented by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which will make the document legally correct.

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

Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – In order to understand the situation in Cyprus we should first remember that the Cyprus problem did not start in 1974 with the intervention of the Turkish army. Secondly, the Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960 by two sides that had equal rights. Now, there are two sides and two states in Cyprus, and we should not ignore this reality if we want to reach a stable solution. Thirdly, the 1960 London-Zurich Agreement and the Guarantee Agreement are the main agreements, and they are part of international law.

      Guarantee Agreement item 4 says that if the items of the agreement are not implemented, Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom will agree to consult each other about the measures needed. It also says that if they cannot act together or come to a conclusion, each of the three guarantor states can act by itself. The 1960 agreement and the structure of the state were dissolved in 1963, when Greek Cypriots kicked out Turkish Cypriots from the posts that they had held under the 1960 agreement. In addition, Greek Cypriots started to attack Turkish villages and to kill Turkish Cypriots. That lasted for 11 years. During that period, the Akritas plan was prepared by Greek Cypriots. The plan explained that the real aim was to achieve enosis and to unite with Greece, but to influence the international public, the Greek Cypriots referred to their demands as “the right of self-determination”.

      In 1974, Makarios asked Greece for help, because he had information that Greek soldiers in Cyprus were organising a coup d’état against him. This was after the coup d’état in Greece. The President of Greece, instead of helping Makarios, effected a coup d’état in south Cyprus, together with other generals in Cyprus. He threw aside the Cyprus Constitution and declared Nikos Sampson head of state. There is a state in the south of Cyprus today, but it is not the state founded in 1960 by the London-Zurich Agreement. No one should use the term “occupier” for a country like Turkey, which waited for 11 years and which intervened only when enosis, forbidden by the 1960 agreement, was on the way to being realised. That intervention took place in accordance with international law, because Turkey consulted the United Kingdom and Greece and asked them to act together.

      There is also the matter of Decision 2658/79 of the High Court of Greece, dated 21 March 1979. It was treated as a top-secret document by Konstantin Karamanlis, because the decision accepts the right of Turkey to intervene as a guarantor state. Turkish intervention blocked enosis, stopped the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots and brought peace to Cyprus and democracy to Greece. There are Turkish troops in the North Cyprus state because there is not yet a solution. There are also English military bases in south Cyprus.

      If we really want a just, durable and realistic solution, we should stand at an equal distance from both sides. Personally, I feel that accepting a new partnership state would be the best solution, because it would mean one state with a confederation of two sovereign founder states. That would be a more realistic and stable solution.

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

      Mr BRANGER (France) congratulated Mr Hörster on his comprehensive report, with which he agreed. The rejection of the Annan plan in 2004 by the Greek Cypriots had left the international community in a state of consternation about how to proceed in tackling the Cyprus issue. However, the plan had been rejected by the Greek Cypriots because they had received an insufficient number of guarantees. This mistake should not be made again.

      He hoped that a solution could and would be achieved. He identified the genuine political will and commended the political courage of the two present leaders, whom, he had no doubt, were very sincere in entering into the current negotiations. However, these negotiations would not be easy as there were three very difficult issues to be addressed: property; territory and security. Mutual compensation for property and territory lost in 1974 was essential. Furthermore, it was not easy to address the issue of the 210 displaced persons. A further difficult issue was that Turkey wanted to retain 40 000 Turkish soldiers in Turkish Cyprus, but the Greek Cypriots wanted them to leave. An additional question which also needed to be answered was whether the Greek community would accept granting Cypriot citizenship to Turkish Cypriots.

      He noted that Turkey had accepted that resolution of the Cyprus problem was essential for its integration into the EU. He reminded the Assembly that, for Ankara, the way to Europe was via Nicosia.

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

Mr MONFILS (Belgium) congratulated the rapporteur on his report. He welcomed the fact that the speeches delivered to the Assembly this morning demonstrated that Mr Talat was open-minded about the development of Cyprus. He argued that it was necessary to ensure that Cyprus could evolve into a federal state. Yes, there were two groups in Cyprus, but if the only expression of this could be the development of two separate states, the Cyprus issue would never be resolved. The key question was whether Turkish Cypriots could be sufficiently independent from Turkey in the negotiations and he was uncertain about that.

      He identified several issues which could hinder the negotiations. First, the on-going military occupation of Northern Cyprus was neither necessary nor justifiable, and had to be brought to an end in order that negotiations could succeed. Second, the question of settlers and the non-compliance with UN Resolution 550 (1984) had to be addressed.       Cyprus could be reunited and prosperous tomorrow, but the key issue in achieving that would be for some countries to keep out of the discussions and to comply with their international obligations.

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

      Mr VRETTOS (Greece) congratulated the rapporteur on his balanced and comprehensive report and thanked members of the Assembly, past and present, for their contribution to the resolution of the Cyprus problem.

      Fortunately, over recent years both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots had moved towards each other. However, there were colleagues in this chamber who were still trying to justify an unjustifiable military occupation. He congratulated Mr Talat on the excellent position he had taken. Furthermore, he said that the Greek Cypriots could not be condemned for the way in which they had voted in the 2004 referendum, as this would be to denounce the very democratic system which was the key to future success.

      Both Mr Christofias and Mr Talat were very sincere. The only difference between the two leaders, as far as he could see, was that Mr Christofias had the freedom to act independently in negotiations. He doubted that Mr Talat shared this freedom as he had to act on orders. The Greek Government had not dared to intervene in Cyprus for years. This was not the situation with the Turkish Government.

      Turkish colleagues had submitted a large number of amendments to the report, which was unhelpful. He appealed to his Turkish colleagues both to end the military occupation and to allow the Turkish Cypriots to decide their own fate. The solution to the problem was a unified Cyprus in a unified Europe. Members of the Assembly could facilitate this goal.

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

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I know that our rapporteur does not want us to deal with recent history, but I ask you to remember the recent past. Four years ago, we were here again debating a draft resolution on Cyprus. That was immediately after the referendums held simultaneously on both sides of the island on the United Nations peace plan. You will remember that it was the time when we came closest to a solution in Cyprus, but a great opportunity was missed. Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly voted in favour of the solution and integration with Europe, whereas the Greek Cypriots rejected the solution by an even greater majority.

      Back then, we applauded the Turkish Cypriots. Back then, we decided to respond positively to the Turkish Cypriots’ European choice. We all agreed that Turkish Cypriots should not be punished because of Greek Cypriot intransigence. In Resolution 1376, we decided that we would do all we could to end the isolation. As a result of that resolution, two Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians, who are democratically elected representatives of their people, can sit among us today.

      I have no doubt that you remember all this. That is why I cannot help asking how the current draft resolution came to take its present form. It is obvious that some of us, first and foremost our rapporteur, have difficulty remembering the recent past that I have just revisited. Therefore, I wish to ask a question of our rapporteur and of the Assembly. What has changed so dramatically in the past four years that we should have before us a draft resolution that is so entirely different from the one that we adopted four years ago?

      In the past four years, a leadership that is even more enthusiastic about a solution has come to power in Northern Cyprus. We have just listened to President Talat’s speech. In Turkey, the government who gave full support to the Annan plan – which included withdrawal of the Turkish troops – are still in power with a strong determination to facilitate a solution in Cyprus. In the past four years, it has been the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey which have worked industriously to resume the negotiation process. On the other hand, on the Greek Cypriot side, the leader who said yes to the plan in negotiations and then appeared on television in tears to ask his fellow citizens to reject the plan is still part of the government.

      Despite all that, the draft resolution invites Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side to confirm their pro-solution credentials, but fails to make such a demand of the Greek Cypriot side, which was responsible for the rejection of the United Nations plan.

      Turkish Cypriots live in ever increasing isolation. They are even denied the opportunity of a friendly football match with an overseas team. Turkish Cypriot universities are left out of the Bologna process. Membership applications to international organisations from Turkish Cypriot NGOs are either turned down or left in limbo. Travel, trade and communications barriers are still in place.

      I ask colleagues to consider those points before voting on the amendments and the draft resolution. I have one final question. How can the Parliamentary Assembly contribute to the recently begun negotiations in Cyprus on the basis of such a biased, unfair and lopsided report?

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

      Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I sincerely hope that this is the last time that the Assembly holds a debate about my divided country. That beautiful island has remained divided for far too long. The time has come for reunification that would put an end to the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish military forces.

      Yesterday, the President of Cyprus made a speech centred around the future. He spoke about the need to forget the past and to look ahead to a bright future for Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Today, to my great sorrow and disappointment, I heard the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Talat, speaking only about the past. This is not the friend Talat I knew a few years ago. His speech was a propaganda treatise, not a political proposal.

      The problem of Cyprus is complex and difficult. For that reason, our rapporteur’s task was not easy. However, despite the difficulties, he has managed – using his experience and capabilities – to produce a report that is both balanced and extremely useful for both communities in Cyprus, as well as Turkey.

      Like any report, this one is not perfect. One of its main weaknesses is that it makes one or two proposals that are obviously and clearly contrary to well-established principles of international law. I hope that those weaknesses will be removed by the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Overall, however, the report is very good and the rapporteur deserves to be congratulated. He rightly looks to the future and leaves aside the past.

      When we consider the amendments, please remember that we must stand firm on principles. The Assembly must not encourage breakaway movements. The territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected. We must not make proposals that give legitimacy to the de facto, illegal regime in the northern part of Cyprus. Any proposal must comply fully with international law and the rule of law.

      I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as all of you who have put in a lot of work and spared no effort in helping to bring peace and justice to my divided country.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides. 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 Hörster, rapporteur, to reply. You have five and a half minutes.

Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) thanked all the speakers in the debate for expressing their opinions. The report had received praise and criticism, which was all part of being in a democracy. In relation to the amendments, he thanked Mrs Keleş, his most severe critic, who had brought out the major issue: that of the status of Cyprus. Should Cyprus be considered as two states or one unified state? The report had focused upon the one-state solution. This was the Council of Europe’s official view of the conflict. The amendments had focused upon the two-state solution. Mr Vareikis had put forward a proposal. The proposals contained in the report in paragraphs 11 to 16 could be dealt with before a final solution. Indeed, instituting these proposals could help the settlement.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hörster. I call Mr Cilevičs. You have two minutes.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – To be effective, any lasting and durable solution must be based on some mutually accepted principles, such as respect for international law and, above all, respect for human rights. Such standards must be one of the basic principles.

      I have a lot of sympathy towards our Turkish friends, because it is no easy task to execute judgments such as that in the Loizidou case and similar judgments pertaining to property issues. Still, this must be done because the Court is the cornerstone of the Council of Europe and it would be unacceptable for this Assembly to disregard its judgments. If we went in such a direction, that would be very dangerous. I am absolutely certain that doing such a thing would not be effective in achieving a peaceful settlement.

      The amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights are really good. Once again, I express my support for the report and for the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Lindblad, the chairman of the committee. You have two minutes.

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – This has been an important debate and it is significant that there is now the possibility that the island of Cyprus might be reunited. I can agree with what has been said here today, although the debate has not been as optimistic as the situation that I found on the island when I visited it in July.

I visited both sides, and I even met Mr Talat. I would say that optimism is at a higher level on the island than it is when the issue is discussed here in the Assembly. That makes me hopeful for the future in a way, because we shall not give up. There is no solution for Cyprus other than being united.

      I can tell you, Mr President, that we have dealt with a whole lot of amendments, but the committee has not been able to deal with a few – from Amendment No. 30 onwards. Amendment No. 1 was adopted unanimously. You can use the new rule, if you prefer. The others were voted on.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lindblad. The debate is closed.

      The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 34 amendments have been tabled. The amendments will be considered in the order set out in the organisation of debates.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, to delete the words “, with its northern part occupied by Turkey since 1974”.

      I call Mrs Keleş to support Amendment No. 13.

      Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Turkey intervened as a guarantor power. Turkish intervention blocked the way to annexation of the island by Greece, stopped ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriots and ended the bloodshed on the island. Therefore, we expect the phrase in the amendment to be deleted to stop the report taking a biased approach.

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

      I call Mr Kyprianou.

      Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union have a totally different approach. We need to stick to that approach. It is vital that we adopt the terminology used by all the international forums concerning the Cyprus issue.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – We voted against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, first sentence, to replace the word “communities” with the following word: “sides”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The amendment uses the accepted terminology also used in the recently started negotiations between the two sides, previous United Nations settlement plans and other United Nations documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that there are more than two communities on the island. There is a Maronite community, as well as an Armenian community. However, there are only two parties. That is why we propose the amendment.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – This is an effort by the Turkish side to lead in the direction of their aim of having two separate states. This is not the approach of the Council of Europe, United Nations or the European Union.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the words “President Christofias” with the following words: “Mr Christofias”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 15.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Those of you who are familiar with the negotiation process know very well that Mr Christofias and Mr Talat participated in the negotiations as the leaders of two parties on an equal basis. We are asking the Assembly to adopt the terminology used in the current negotiations.

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

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Mr Christofias was here as the President of the Republic of Cyprus, and I cannot understand why this issue is raised. The only explanation that I can give is, again, a wish to move towards two equal entities – two separate states. We have to stop that.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Philippe Monfils, Mr Paul Wille, Mr Denis Badré, Mrs Arlette Grosskost and Mr Frédéric Reiss, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 3, to add the following sentence:

“The Assembly encourages all parties and countries that are directly or indirectly linked to the Cypriot question to develop and to maintain a climate of reconciliation, confidence and mutual respect, as well as to avoid all action or declarations that could harm the ongoing constructive dialogue and accentuate tensions.”

I call Mr Monfils to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr MONFILS (Belgium) said that the amendment was quite simple. It required the solution to be worked out by Cypriots without outside help. It had been adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee in unanimously in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to delete the words “(including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights)”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – This paragraph addresses the United Nations organisations, so just mentioning the basic values of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly – democracy, the rule of law and human rights – is enough. We should not go into details, otherwise there will be a mess.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to replace the words “intercommunal contacts” with the following words: “contact between the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – If we use the terms “community” and “intercommunal”, we do not refer directly to the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. That is why we propose this amendment.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – As I said earlier, this amendment is an effort to divide the Republic of Cyprus and lead to two separate states, so I call upon the Assembly to reject it.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to replace the word “communities” with the following word: “parties”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The terminology that we propose, referring to the two Cypriot parties, is also the terminology that the two sides have agreed in common documents prepared in negotiations since April 2008. That is the new terminology, which we propose here.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – It is the same argument, Mr President, and I do not want to repeat it again.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 18 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No.  19, tabled by Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, to delete the words “and by the Republic of Cyprus”.

I call Mrs Keleş to support Amendment No. 19.

Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – We wish to delete the words “and by the Republic of Cyprus”, because the paragraph is about the international community easing the restrictions imposed on the Turkish Cypriots. That was done, but the Greek side did nothing of the kind; on the contrary, after the rejection of the Annan plan by the Greek Cypriots, the Greek Cypriot side insisted on blocking the way, not only to the directorate, but in other contexts, including educational and sporting relations.

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

I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Especially after Mr Christofias’s speech yesterday, there is a very good reason to congratulate the Republic of Cyprus on the excellent state of affairs, so I am very much against the amendment.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 19 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş and Mrs Özlem Türköne, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, to replace the words “Turkish Cypriots’ integration into Cyprus and Europe” with the following words: “the lifting of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots and their integration into Europe”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 20.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The declared aim of the negotiations is not to integrate Turkish Cypriots into the Greek Cypriot state, which is the well-known policy of the Greek Cypriot side. On the contrary, according to the ongoing negotiations between the two leaders, a new partnership state will come into being, according to the “virgin birth” concept.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The international community recognises the Republic of Cyprus, not a Cypriot state. Again, there is a desire for the Turkish Cypriots to be outside the Republic of Cyprus, meaning two separate states.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 20 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, to delete the words “, it being understood that these activities must not be misused to attain political purposes incompatible with the aim of reunifying the island”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) . – Any restrictions imposed on the Turkish Cypriots should be lifted without any conditions, since the Turkish Cypriots are negotiating in good faith to bring about a comprehensive settlement.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – I believe that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has explained very well why the amendment should be rejected – namely, that everything should be done within the framework of the respective United Nations, European and Council of Europe resolutions.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Boriss Cilevičs, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, in the third sentence, to replace the words “must not be misused” with the following words: “are consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984) on Cyprus and cannot be misused”.

      I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 6.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – We believe that the only way to prevent the misuse of the measures mentioned in the paragraph is to implement them in full compliance with international law and in particular with Security Council resolutions.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 6 is adopted

      We come to Amendment No. 22.

      I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 22.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – As we moved similar amendments and they were rejected, I would like to withdraw the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 12.

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 12.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – We have already adopted an identical amendment, tabled by Mr Monfils, so I do not think that there is a need to vote for this one.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş and Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.1, to replace the word “communities” with the following word: “parties”.

      I call Mr Koç to support Amendment No. 23.

      Mr KOÇ (Turkey) said that the solution needed to take into account, and respect, the different cultures and religions of the two communities.

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

      Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – If you have two peoples, you have two separate states and this Assembly has decided that it does not accept having two separate states in Cyprus.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 23 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 2.

I call Mr Monfils to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr MONFILS (Belgium) withdrew the amendment, as it was similar to other amendments tabled.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment has been withdrawn.

I have received an oral amendment from the rapporteur Mr Hörster, which reads as follows:

Replace paragraph 11.2.1 with the following paragraph:

“11.2.1. lift objections to the adoption of the Council of the European Union's Direct Trade Regulation put forward by the European Commission allowing free direct trade between Turkish Cypriots and the EU through their own ports”.

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

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I seek clarification. Who tabled this oral amendment?

THE PRESIDENT. – The oral amendment has been tabled by Mr Hörster. I call Mr Hörster.

Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) explained that the amendment referred to a decision of the European Union Commission, and that the amendment used the same wording as was used in that decision.

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

I call Mr Marty.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) commented that Amendment No. 7 had dealt with the same substance, and that the position of his committee was that Cypriot problems should be solved by Cypriots. Amendment No. 7 expressed the sentiments better than the oral amendment being considered, so the oral amendment should be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Marty is against the oral amendment. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee has no opinion because we did not deal with this view.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

I call Baroness Knight on a point of order.

Baroness KNIGHT OF COLLINGTREE (United Kingdom). – What has just happened has been most unsatisfactory. It has not been my experience here that we often accept amendments we have not had a chance to see, think about and discuss. It is difficult to explain so briefly what the real aim behind the oral amendment is. It has put all members in difficulty and I want to protest.

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

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – It is a question of the oral amendment. I think that you have to ask if there are 10 persons who reject it.

THE PRESIDENT. – I had already asked whether there was any opposition to the oral amendment. I explained the rules of procedure and no one here stood up and opposed the oral amendment being dealt with. That is why the oral amendment was put to the vote.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Boriss Cilevičs, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.2.1, to replace the words “their own ports” with the following words:

“ports in the northern part of the island, over which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, it being understood that this direct trade is conducted in a manner compatible with the Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council on Cyprus and Protocol No 10 to the Accession Treaty of Cyprus to the European Union”.

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – We fully support that idea, but the wording, “their own ports”, is very unfortunate. It indirectly implies recognition of the sovereignty of Northern Cyprus, which is contrary to the Security Council resolutions and also decisions of this body. We therefore suggest very accurate wording. I agree that it is clumsy, but in this case we should sacrifice style for the sake of legal certainty.

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

I call Mr Türkeş.

Mr TÜRKEŞ (Turkey). – In his report of December 2007, the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, reiterated the call of his predecessor, Mr Annan, in calling on the international community to maintain economic, social and cultural ties with the Turkish Cypriot people. The amendment would be another step towards the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, so we think that the position should be left as it is.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee voted against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 24, tabled by Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11.2.1, to add the following words:

“to facilitate the Turkish Cypriot community’s commercial exchanges in accordance with PACE Resolution 1362 (2004) and to allow direct flights to and from Ercan airport under Turkish Cypriot management.”

I call Mrs Keleş to support Amendment No. 24.

Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey) – The amendment is in conformity with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1362 and the statements of the last two United Nations Secretaries-General in 2004 and 2007. We are just asking to facilitate the Turkish Cypriot community’s commercial exchanges in accordance with the PACE resolution and to allow direct flights to and from Ercan airport under Turkish Cypriot management.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee voted against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 24 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 25, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.2.2, to replace the words “insofar as these contacts are not misused for political purposes or incompatible with the reunification of the island” with the following words:

“and exert effort particularly within the EU to find ways and means to facilitate the integration of the universities in the North into the European higher education area”.

      I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 25.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – It gives me pleasure to propose this amendment because I have had the privilege of working for the British Council in universities on both sides of the divide in Cyprus. If this Assembly stands for anything, it must be for the opportunity of young people to make a difference in their lives. We should not deny young people at university in the north of Cyprus the opportunity of having the same facility for their education to be treated by others with the respect it deserves. This Assembly should be supporting the young people of Cyprus and the future of that country. There should not be a divide when it comes to opportunities for young people in education. This Assembly will make a grave error of judgment if it rejects this amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee voted against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 25 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 27, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11.2.4, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“reaffirm its support for achieving a comprehensive and durable Cyprus settlement and for the Good Offices mission of the UN Secretary-General.”

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 27.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – We think that an additional power to this effect is necessary given that a similar call is made by the Turkish Cypriot party. Furthermore, the Turkish Cypriot side has already proved its determination by voting in favour of the reunification of the island in 2004. If there is a party that needs to reaffirm its support for the resolution of the Cyprus problem it is the Greek Cypriot party, so our Assembly should not refrain form making such a positive call on Greek Cypriots.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The President of the Republic was here yesterday, when he reiterated his will to work towards achieving a solution of the Cyprus problem. He is the one who took all the initiatives in the last few months which created this mobilisation on the Cyprus issue, so it is ridiculous to ask him to reaffirm his will for a solution.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee voted against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 27 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 28, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.3.1, to replace the words “to reunifying Cyprus, and to refrain from insisting on the existence of a “separate state” in the north of island” with the following words:

“to a comprehensive and durable Cyprus settlement and for the Good Offices mission of the UN Secretary-General”.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 28.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – We propose this amendment in line with the statement of 23 May 2008 on United Nations parameters. Turkish Cypriots are not after a separate state; otherwise, they would not have engaged in a negotiation process. The Turkish Cypriot side has already proved its determination by working in favour of the reunification of the island in 2004, as I have repeated several times.

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

      I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – I wish I was so sure that the Turkish Cypriots are not in favour of having a solution based on two states, but unfortunately so far our whole discussion about this report sends the message that they really want a solution based on two separate states. We need to make it clear to them that if we want to unify the island we shall never accept a solution based on two separate states.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee voted against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 28 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 29, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.3.2, to replace the words “put on hold the sales of, and construction on,” with the following words:

“take necessary measures, in light of the relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, regarding”.

I call Mr Çağlar to support Amendment No. 29.

Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community). – Such an excessive demand appears in none of the court’s judgments or Committee of Ministers’ decisions, and it is not in conformity with them. The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment of 22 December 2005 on the Xenides-Arestis case, asked Turkey to introduce a remedy that secures the effective protection of the property rights of Greek Cypriots. In light of this judgment, a new domestic mechanism, namely the Immovable Property Commission, has been established. The Assembly should refrain from the attempts to pre-judge the results of these negotiations. Therefore, this paragraph should be replaced to reflect the new situation.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I do not know, because in the provisional edition this amendment was further down and was not dealt with by the committee. We do not have an opinion.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The committee was against. I remember very well that the committee had an opinion. This was the last amendment on which the committee had an opinion.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Kyprianou, with all respect, Mr Lindblad speaks on behalf of the committee and we cannot question that position.

The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 29 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Boriss Cilevičs, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.3.2, to replace the words “on hold” with the following words: “an end to”.

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 8.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with Mr Çağlar, because the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is completely clear. It speaks not about putting “on hold”, but about putting “an end to” the sales of property. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights insists that this is the only correct understanding of the Court’s ruling, which should not be misinterpreted. We believe that the language that we suggest is more legally correct.

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

      I call Mrs Türköne.

      Mrs TÜRKÖNE (Turkey). – Property problems are at the core of the Cyprus issue. The European Court of Human Rights said that the Immovable Property Commission will be the compensation and administration mechanism. That is why we propose deleting the whole paragraph.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Amendment No. 8 is the last amendment dealt with by the committee, so we do not have any opinion on the remaining amendments. However, the committee voted in favour of Amendment No. 8.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 30, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 11.3.3.

      I call Mr Çağlar to support Amendment No. 30.

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community). – This issue was covered by the 2001 Court judgment in the interstate case of Cyprus v. Turkey. Following the measures adopted by the Turkish Cypriot authorities, the Committee of Ministers, which is in charge of monitoring the execution of judgments of the Court, decided to close the examination of the issue on 4 April 2007 through an interim resolution, which said: “The Committee of Ministers…welcoming the continued functioning of the secondary school in Rizokarpaso since 2004 and in particular the fact that since September 2005 full secondary education to Greek Cypriot children is ensured; noting also the improvements of the regulatory framework aimed at securing the basis for the secondary education offered”.

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

      I call Mr Pourgourides.

      Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – There are still serious problems as regards the education of children in the northern part of Cyprus. The list of teachers must be approved not only by the authorities of the de facto regime but by the military in Turkey. There are some teachers whom they do not accept. The arrival of the books is very much delayed. It takes weeks for them to arrive. The proposal is therefore necessary.

      THE PRESIDENT. – There is no opinion of the committee, but I call Mr Hörster to give an explanation.

Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) had looked at the amendment and was in favour. Over the past year, many of the demands made of the Turkish community had been met. While there were still shortcomings, these would be best dealt with by the Council of Ministers.

      THE PRESIDENT. –The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 30 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Philippe Monfils, Mr Paul Wille, Mr Denis Badré, Mrs Arlette Grosskost and Mr Frédéric Reiss, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11.3.3, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“consider specific aid to help the Turkish settlers to leave;”.

I call Mr Monfils to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr MONFILS (Belgium) argued that population transfers on political grounds could not be acceptable. This was the idea behind the amendment moved.

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

      I call Mr Cebeci.

      Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – If we look at the report and at past findings, we see that the mover of the amendment is introducing an entirely new matter, which has no relevance to the topic.

      THE PRESIDENT. – There is no opinion of the committee.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Philippe Monfils, Mr Paul Wille, Mr Denis Badré, Mrs Arlette Grosskost and Mr Frédéric Reiss, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11.3.3, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“respect point 5 of United Nations Resolution 550 by placing the city of Famagusta under UN administration.”

      I call Mr Monfils to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr MONFILS (Belgium) said that in essence, this amendment was about the 30 000 inhabitants of Famagusta who wanted to return home and to secure their future. The Assembly should give more weight to humanitarian issues.

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

      I call Mr Cebeci.

      Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – The amendment would place a city under the administration of the United Nations. We are trying to clear outsiders from the island, but the amendment would add extra complexity to the problem.

      THE PRESIDENT. – There is no opinion of the committee.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

I understand that Amendment No. 26 has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Boriss Cilevičs, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11.3.3, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“calls upon the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus and of the Turkish Cypriot Community to protect all religious monuments and allow restoration work to take place whenever necessary.”

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights believes that the protection of religious monuments and of cultural heritage is an important legal obligation on all parties in the conflict, so we believe that it is essential to add the reciprocal provision in the amendment to the text of the resolution.

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

There is no opinion of the committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş and Mrs Özlem Türköne, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 14.1 with the following sub-paragraph:

“continue its existing contribution in creation of a more constructive climate in the ongoing negotiations;”.

      I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 31.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – We propose adding the sub-paragraph because Turkey has already shown its strong will and determination to achieve a solution, and has already supported all solutions and plans, including the Annan plan and the proposals for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island. Turkey should continue its efforts. That is why we propose the additional sub-paragraph.

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

      I call Mr Kyprianou.

      Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Recent statements made by Turkish officials refer to a solution based on two separate states. If that approach were helping in the efforts to reach a solution, we would agree with Mr Çavuşoğlu, but that is not the case. The approach that they take is contrary to UN and Council decisions.

      THE PRESIDENT. – There is no opinion of the committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 31 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Boriss Cilevičs, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the beginning of paragraph 14.1, to insert the following words: “respect United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Cyprus and”.

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 10.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – In line with our previous amendment, which was supported by the Assembly, we wish to add the reference to the legal framework at this point also.

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

I call Mr Cebeci.

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – The reference to the UN resolutions is fine. However, the 2004 Annan plan was a United Nations plan and the rapporteur mentions only the resolutions. That is a very selective approach, and that is why I oppose the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

I call Mr Monfils to support Amendment No. 5

Mr MONFILS (Belgium) said that this was a difficult situation and that to make things easier he would withdraw the amendment. If Turkey had agreed to reduce its military presence in Cyprus, this was a major step forward. He supported the rapporteur.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment No. 5 has been withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 32, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 14.2.

      I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 32.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Turkey put forward an action plan on 24 January 2006, which envisaged the simultaneous lifting of restrictions by all relevant parties, and this Assembly strongly supported that plan. It is still on the table, but Turkish Cypriots are still under the yoke of isolation imposed on them by their Greek Cypriot counterparts. It is not fair to expect Turkey to open its ports to Greek Cypriot vessels.

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

      I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – This was the main demand of the European Union when it started negotiations on the Turkish accession. All we are doing is echoing that demand.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 32 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 33, tabled by Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 14.3 with the following sub-paragraph:

“continue to co-operate effectively in the efforts to ascertain the fate of the missing persons in Cyprus and continue its contribution to the work of the Committee of Missing Persons, which has already made remarkable progress.”

I call Mrs Keleş to support Amendment No. 33.

Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – This amendment is about missing persons. We want to make the point that Turkey has been co-operating with the Committee of Missing Persons already. Indeed, Turkey recently donated $100 000 to support its work. We are interested in missing persons because we have more than 500 missing people from between 1964 and 1974.

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

That is not the case.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 33 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Boriss Cilevičs, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 14.3, to add the following words:

“, as well as from the Court’s other judgments concerning citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, namely the Loizidou and Xenedis-Arestis judgments”.

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment No. 11.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – We believe that Turkey has an obligation to execute judgments in not only the interstate cases in the resolution, but the cases brought by individuals.

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

      I call Mr Cebeci.

      Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – In the course of negotiations between the two sides under the auspices of the UN, it was agreed that such issues would be dealt with by global exchange, because the Turkish Cypriots left behind many properties in south Cyprus. The amendment does not mention anything about that, so it is biased in its approach and should be rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 34, tabled by Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mrs Birgen Keleş and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, to replace the words “Greek Cypriots” with the following words: “the new partnership state”.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to support Amendment No. 34.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – This is an appeal to the United Kingdom Government, and therefore our British colleagues may have an interest in this point. We wish to underline that the Greek Cypriots will not be the sole owners of the new state. That issue will be taken up in the ongoing comprehensive negotiations and the outcome should not be pre-empted.

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

I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – What does the term “new partnership state” mean? It means two separate states in partnership, so this is an effort to introduce their view of what the final solution should be. We cannot accept it.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 34 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11699, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11699, as amended, is adopted, with 99 votes for, 20 against and 7 abstentions.

      (Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kosachev.)

4. OECD and the world economy (enlarged debate)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business at this morning’s sitting is the first part of the enlarged debate on OECD and the world economy. This debate will take place under the rules set out on pages 218 to 230 of the 2008 edition of the Rules of Procedure.

      We begin with a presentation by Ms Lilliehöök, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, of its report on OECD and the world economy, Document 11687.

      We shall hear contributions from four committees, which will be followed by an address by Mr Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of OECD.

      I draw the attention of the Assembly to the presence of delegations that are not members of the Assembly, but are from OECD countries.

      I call Ms Lilliehöök. You have eight minutes.

      Ms LILLIEHÖÖK (Sweden). – Our debate on OECD and the world economy is taking place against the backdrop of an acute crisis involving frozen financial markets and prospects for contraction in economic activity. It affects not only the United States of America but our member countries, which are very much touched by this crisis.

      There will be many calls for quick and harsh action in economic policy. The work of OECD that we will discuss today is especially important as it has its basis in international co-operation and continued efforts to point to economic policy alternatives for growth, with a view to the medium and long term. It is based on science and good, evaluated examples.

      OECD’s report gives a broad overview of economic analysis during the past year, including the problems of recurrent financial shocks, falling house prices and price hikes for energy and food. It points to the uncertain prospects for the world economy today. However, the good news so far is that general economic developments have been evaluated in reports produced up to September as better than expected. Even if headline inflation remains high, price pressures have eased. OECD’s report also points out that policy makers are advised to take into account economic development outside OECD’s area.

      The financial turbulence presents unprecedented challenges to governments. OECD stresses the need for regulation and separation of the financial sector. Risk management and transparency must be improved. The truly global character of the financial sector has created opportunities, but it also presents great problems of interdependency.

      According to OECD, the actions of governments and central banks in seeking to provide liquidity in financial markets appear to have struck the right balance so far. However, the rescue of failing private institutions at the expense of taxpayers presents a difficult balancing act and has been questioned. That issue is at the centre of the current worsening of the financial turmoil and the failure of the bail-out package in the United States. It also shows how important it is that actions are also supported by citizens.

      The proposed resolution welcomes OECD’s financial education project and the development of good guidelines. OECD also points out that the protection of bank deposits needs to be strengthened and corrected, according to the change in monetary value. Such changes are already under way in some countries.

      Another special challenge to international co-operation is climate change – a challenge in relation to which OECD countries have special responsibility. The effects of energy shortages have become clear during this past year and shown the necessity for technological development with co-operation for innovation and the spread of efficient energy solutions.

      The report calls for international co-operation in the form of technical assistance and humanitarian help to alleviate the effects of price hikes and shortages of food products, which have hit the poorest countries very hard this year.

      Another effect of economic turbulence and shortages is, of course, the risk of migration pressures. The report points to the important role that migration plays in relation to OECD economies, and we note that immigration is a priority for OECD and its Secretary-General.

      International trade is an issue that requires us to work together worldwide. It can offer us great benefits. The report urges member countries to make every effort to continue with the Doha round and bring it to a positive conclusion.

      Our report also points to the work being done within the Development Assistance Committee of OECD. That work is carried out in relation to donor policies, reformed aid delivery and aid co-operation. OECD’s work is very closely related to the Assembly’s work on combating corruption. Over the past decade, OECD has developed anti-corruption tools and expertise, for example in public sector governance and integrity, as well as in commercial governance.

      We note that membership of OECD is being discussed with a number of countries such as Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia. Co-operation is also being discussed with a number of countries outside OECD that are important to OECD economies. In the report, we want the Assembly to pass a resolution urging OECD to reserve membership to those countries that respect democracy, human rights and international law.

Lastly, I welcome and thank the Secretary-General of OECD, Mr Gurría, as well as the delegations from Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexico, for coming here today to take part in this enlarged Parliamentary Assembly session and to join us in the debate about the report on OECD and its activities over the past year. Finally, I express my gratitude to all OECD experts for their contributions, as well as to the Secretariat of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development for its hard work on a report that has not been easy, in a year of very changeable economic conditions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs de Belèm Roseira to present the contribution of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Document 11719. You have three minutes.

Mrs de BELÈM ROSEIRA (Portugal) thanked the President and welcomed the Secretary-General of OECD. She congratulated Ms Lilliehöök on her report. The Committee for Social, Health and Family Affairs had considered the report on OECD and the world economy in relation to its areas of competence.

There was a paradox. Economists believed that the growth of markets had social benefits. Public opinion opposed this. The public believed that the opening up of markets caused problems in relation to labour, risk and the distribution of wealth. Technological development and the lowering of costs led to the displacement of production.

The International Labour Organization was concerned that measures to make markets more flexible could lead to social problems. Such measures should not bring about negative effects. Societal changes had to be accepted by the whole of society.

We lived in a paradoxical time. There were problems affecting corporations; companies were unable to adapt effectively to economic change and the financial markets were in turmoil. These problems had an impact on the labour market. The gap between rich and poor was growing and leading to inequality and exclusion. It was very important for OECD to consider societal measures that would protect jobs, research, investment and technological development. Preventing marginalisation would also reduce crime. It was important to preserve the social security safety net and to ensure that such systems remained effective.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Zernovski to present the contribution of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have three minutes.

Mr ZERNOVSKI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – Allow me first to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Lilliehöök, on an excellent report. I am also glad that the Secretary-General of OECD is with us, as I will address one of its main issues, migration.

One of the main issues that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has dealt with is the integration of migrants into our populations. Several of our reports to the Assembly have addressed that issue. The latest, in June, was presented by my colleague John Greenway and analysed how to improve the democratic participation of migrants. That is a fundamental issue, and applies not only to political participation, but as much to participation in the world of work in enterprises and public administration, and to the variety of associations that characterise the richness of our democracies. However, in order to participate, migrants need to learn the language of their host society. They also need to understand the history and respect the values of their host country. I am therefore pleased that OECD is looking into migrant education.

Diasporas may be important in facilitating integration, while giving immigrants the satisfaction and security of staying in touch with their countries and regions of origin. However, diasporas may also hamper integration, on the grounds of cultural or religious traditions that are not acceptable in our industrialised countries. An open dialogue with migrant associations on all aspects of migrants’ participation in their host countries is therefore very important.

Migrants can play, and already have played, an important role in defending our ideals and values in their countries of origin, for example, through the development of democracy, defending human rights and promoting the rule of law. Migrants’ contribution to economic development in their countries of origin can be considerable, not least through remittances – the transfers that may amount to the first or second most important source of domestic income. We in the committee have therefore looked into the prospect of linking migration with co-development policies.

      As part of the preparations for our report, we had the pleasure of being invited by the senate in Mexico to hold the parliamentary forum on migration there in 2004. It is important to mention that migration and development was one of the issues debated at the eighth Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Migration Affairs and at the Parliamentary Forum on Economic Migration, Social Cohesion and Development in Kiev on 4 and 5 September. I again congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report..

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Daems to present the contribution of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Document 11697. You have three minutes.

      Mr DAEMS (Belgium). – We adopted the report on 2 September. We have a well-researched report on OECD and the world economy by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development. That deals with the activities of OECD in the economic sector. We all know that the organisation’s activities range wider than that. Education and science are also important. That is why our committee focused on those matters.

      In the context of education, we decided that three basic elements should be the focus of this report. One is the trend that, although there has been an increase in education expenditure, there are no results from that – we spend more or less 38% on education costs. We must fight that trend. Secondly, there is an important mismatch in adult competences, which basically means that people over 40 or 45 are no longer fit for the market, so to speak. We must tackle that in the context of adequate life-long learning. The third element is the widening digital gap, which basically is becoming a generational gap. I am happy that the rapporteur accepted those three elements and that she will find room for them in a new paragraph in the resolution.

      In terms of human rights, there is a basic problem. The new global challenges include world food safety, large-scale genetic technology and especially the potentially dramatic effect of global climate change on access to basic needs, such as food, energy and water. In the opinion of the committee, access to water is a basic human right. We should stress that a lot more. The committee believes that water should get a lot of attention. We all know that the basis of life is water. We went to Mars to find water. We thought that there might be life on Mars. Why do we not do anything on our planet about water? We are doing far too little on that on our own planet.

      The committee believes that, next year, it may be wise or even helpful if we have a separate report on education and science because they are so important for the future of our global development.

      As someone else said on water, if we want to think green, we have to act blue, blue being water.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Vis to present the contribution of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Document 11712. You have three minutes.

      Mr VIS (United Kingdom). – In the past decade, OECD reports have been quite straightforward, but not this year. I was particularly attracted by the sentence in Ms Lilliehöök’s report in paragraph 2 about the risky nature of forecasting. If she were to sit here tomorrow, she might say different things from what she said yesterday. That is the riskiness that she referred to. Our committee wishes to congratulate her on a difficult, brilliant and balanced report, whatever balance means in this context.

Our committee concentrated on the link between energy supply and environmental protection, with special reference to agrofuels. We looked into the links between agrofuels and world food shortages, which lead to increased prices of world food, as well as biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions and any resultant reduction or otherwise in CO₂. We concluded that conserving and restoring forests and grasslands would be preferable to developing agrofuels.

We are unsure in the committee about the second and third generations. That is a market principle: the second generation will be better, as will the third generation. Therefore, we tabled an amendment. That is not to say that we do not like the report, but at the end of paragraph 8 we would like to add the words “and to carefully consider all the side-effects of their development”.

5. Address by the Secretary-General of OECD

THE PRESIDENT. – We now come to the address by Mr Angel Gurría.

      We are extremely happy to welcome you again to the Parliamentary Assembly for this enlarged debate on the activities of OECD and the global economy, accompanied by Mr Aart de Geus, Deputy Secretary-General.

      Since last year, it seems that the member states of both our organisations need the expertise of OECD more than ever. The financial hurricane that has hit the United States, stalling global economic growth and sapping confidence in our financial system, has shaken the European economies too. Parliaments have a key role in shaping appropriate policy responses, but in doing so they rely on the expertise of organisations such as yours.

      In this connection, I would like also to greet our parliamentary guests from OECD countries that are not members of the Council of Europe, this year from Japan and Korea, together with the delegations that are of course already observers in this Assembly, Canada and Mexico. Thank you all for your contributions and we look forward to a lively debate.

      Mr Secretary-General, I invite you to take the floor.

Mr GURRÍA (Secretary-General of OECD) said that it was, as usual, a great honour to address the Assembly. This was his third visit to the Council of Europe, and it was becoming an ever greater pleasure to address the Assembly.

      Before turning to the turbulent world economy, he wanted to congratulate Mr de Puig on his nomination as the President of the Assembly. It was a pleasure to exchange views and ideas with him.

      He thanked the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development for producing an excellent report on OECD. In particular, he wanted to thank the rapporteur, Ms Lilliehöök, for the excellent work she had done on the report.

(The speaker continued in English)

      I would like to share with you a few brush strokes on OECD’s perspective on the global economy in the context of the current financial crisis, which is the central issue of the moment. We will have a chance to exchange a few comments after lunch.

      The situation is indeed critical. We are facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and its consequences are already spreading beyond the financial sphere throughout the globe. The financial system is the conveyor belt through which the economy works, and if the financial system is partially blocked or paralysed, as it is now, the economy cannot work normally.

      We have already seen the first troubled European banks being rescued in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany and that is only during last week.

      Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg). – And Luxembourg.

Mr GURRÍA. – Yes, and Luxembourg. In fact, it participated in two – Dexia and Fortis, I think – so it has been active also.

OECD experts suggest that, considering the exposure of European financial institutions, we may have to start thinking of a systemic plan for Europe if things do not improve on the other side of the Atlantic in the United States. The piecemeal approach, which did not work in the United States, may not work in Europe either. We will have to see. Since its announcement, OECD has supported the adoption of the United States systemic rescue plan. I am confident that in the coming days the United States legislators will reach an agreement to provide this crucial tool. Last Monday, we said that it was important to do so. Of course, as always, the devil is in the detail, but we believe that the fundamental approach is right. Beyond the emergency measures, however, it will also be essential to go to the roots of the problem to draw our lessons and conduct a major debate on the necessary reform of the international financial system. Bubbles and crises can still occur again if the underlying imbalances are not addressed directly. Understanding causality – what happened first and then what happened later and why – is therefore an extremely important issue when we are discussing correct policy making.

The current financial crisis had its origin in traditional factors that have led to past banking crises in the United States and in other countries, but also in some non-traditional features that are quite idiosyncratic in comparison. Among the conventional features, we see a boom period of large credit growth; a sustained rise in asset prices, which everybody thought was going to continue for ever, especially in the housing market; and explosive lending to non-creditworthy economic agents, in this case sub-prime mortgage debtors. This became too crazy. There were sub-prime loans and then the so-called Ninja loans. Those loans were not made to Japanese citizens. Ninja means “No income, no job, no assets”, but still those people got a loan. Obviously, that had to go wrong and end the way it did.

There were also unconventional, novel features that contributed to the breadth of the problem. There was the development of the so-called originate-and-distribute model, which means that the banks originated the mortgages but then sold them instead of keeping them as they usually did in the past. There was a high appetite for yield. There was stability in the world, and therefore low inflation, and people wanted more yield. It was boring to be in the financial markets and people needed more excitement, which was associated with taking more yield, and therefore they took more risks. There was ex-ante ignorance and ex-post uncertainty on the risk features of mortgage-based securities as well as on the related derivatives and credit-default swaps in all these new products. We saw inadequate corporate governance and management incentives in financial institutions. In particular, why is it that in some countries some banks did well and some failed? It is obviously because the governance in some institutions was better than in others and the risk management was different. Then there is the role of regulators and rating agencies – all the people who participate in the system.

We must learn from these flaws and failures. OECD is an appropriate forum in which to exchange views on these issues and to propose new approaches to these challenges. We need to start thinking about what longer-run solutions might look like, and OECD committees will play a strong role in that respect. Remember that you are represented in all these committees. It is a bottom-up exercise. Your experts go there, not the officials of OECD. All your directors and deputy ministers go there to discuss these issues. We have working party 1 and working party 3 of the economic policy committee and the financial markets committee. You are all represented in these committees and therefore your voice can be heard. It is a good place to discuss the issues and to propose best practices.

The breakdown of financial markets – even if largely reversed in the coming days; yesterday, there was a 4% increase against a 7% drop, so there is great volatility – will affect the short and medium-term prospects for activity and inflation throughout the world. At least several quarters of weak growth lie ahead. The G7 area is expected to grow by about 1.4%, if at all, in 2008. Developing countries will feel the pinch too. Growth prospects for 2009 are now more uncertain and headline inflation is making life more difficult, because on top of the slowdown there are inflationary pressures. Then the central banks do not know what to fight first when they are deciding on monetary policy. Do they ease to allow recovery or tighten to fight inflationary threats? It is very difficult, in terms of the policy mix, to know what to do first.

The current financial crisis has cast a shadow over the global economy, but let me speak about some of the positive developments. Beneath the dark clouds of this financial storm, global current account imbalances have been decreasing. You will remember that every year we talk here about these imbalances, including last year and the year before. Global foreign direct investment reached a record $1.8 trillion in 2007. That means that FDI is flowing like never before. Oil and food prices have started to come down. If the economy is coming down demand for these things comes down and prices therefore respond for the first time to some economic logic. Emerging economies are showing remarkable stability and resilience. The impact of the crisis in a country like China is very severe. Instead of growing at 11% its economy will probably grow at 9.5%. In India, instead of growing at 10% it might grow at 8% or 8.5%. There is no perfect decoupling but there are obviously countries that are more affected than others.

OECD – your OECD – has been adapting to the new circumstances. We are working hard to produce a more inclusive globalisation process. In the past year, we have provided member countries, and a growing number of non-members, with the knowledge of instruments to improve global dialogue and policy making in key areas like climate change. We have produced a document called “OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030”, which is our contribution to a blueprint on what to do about climate change, and which I give to the spokesperson of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.

      On agricultural development and food prices, we worked with the Food and Agriculture Organization to produce a book on what is happening, and what will happen, to food prices. Basically, we say that food prices will be higher in the next 10 years than they were in the last 10 years. That will produce many challenges; we will have to make a humanitarian effort. We will make a technical effort on agriculture, and there will have to be a development effort to create more jobs and ensure that people have more purchasing capacity.

      On education, let me say to our friends on the Committee on Culture, Science and Education that I have with me a document, “Education at a Glance”, which we have just produced; we produce it every year. It is a comparative study of every single system in OECD, and of the systems in an increasing number of other countries. I will give it to our friend, the representative of the committee. At the very least, it helps to build up one’s muscles.

      On sovereign wealth funds, and the huge investment funds of the Arabs, the Chinese and others, we are working on a very important mandate involving innovation, structural reform and the internet economy.

A colleague mentioned migration; I have here the “International Migration Outlook”. Ours is the only organisation that produces such a document every year. We have done so for 32 years. What he said was very interesting, because we measure migration flows and education, and the jobs market. Then we turn to, say, Germany or Denmark, and produce a book that asks how we can better integrate migrants, through education, in the job markets of those countries. In the end, what is produced is not so much statistics but policy recommendations. The numbers recommend the right policy and show who is doing the right thing and who is not achieving the right results with their policy. I give that document to my colleague from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

      I must give the rapporteur from the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development the first OECD “Economic Outlook” for this year, but it was produced in June. Unfortunately, we have cut the projections for the world economy twice since then because of prices, but the substance of the conclusions is still valid. The document has now become a classic; it is three months old.

      Somebody mentioned employment. I have with me the OECD “Employment Outlook” for 2008. Again, we produce one of these every year. We take a hard look at the employment issues and ask how things are looking and what is happening. I give that to my colleague on the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

      Last but not least, I have a document on growth that I could give to any one of our colleagues. It is called “Going for Growth”. In that document, we use the technique of naming and shaming. We say to countries, “We told you last year what you should do; what have you done?” Then we say, “You haven’t done very much.” I will give this one to the President of the Assembly.

      That was a little bit about the work that we do all the time. To help strengthen financial markets, we will intensify our co-operation with governments, central banks and international institutions in proposing and supporting implementation of regulatory and supervisory reforms that address the main market and regulatory failures in the current financial crisis. We will advance by means of the OECD financial education programme. A colleague mentioned financial education; let me point out that we have a big programme on financial inclusion. Tomorrow, I am going to Budapest, where I will present the President of Hungary with a study on that country’s environment, and with OECD’s financial education programme, because the Hungarian Prime Minister is launching one, too, and he wants to work with us.

      To respond more effectively to such challenges in a more plural and complex global economy, we will keep advancing steadily in our enlargement and enhanced engagement processes. We are becoming more global and more inclusive. What do I mean by that? When I refer to accession, I am talking about Russia, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia and Israel, who are in negotiation to become full members. When I refer to enhanced engagement, I am talking about Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and Indonesia, who are in discussions with us, so that they can have a more predictable, closer, more organised and more productive relationship with us, with a view to possible membership. For them, membership is not imminent, but somewhat remote.

      I will finish my speech now, because I know that we have to go, as colleagues are hungry. We will increase our already rich relations with developing countries through initiatives such as the Heiligendamm dialogue process. There is a mandate for the G8 and OECD to become a platform for dialogue with the G5. That happens every year at our summit meetings. Other initiatives include the Partnership for Democratic Governance, which supports the weaker states in delivering basic services to the population, and our development centre’s activities in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Vietnam, Colombia and Israel are already members of the development centre, and Indonesia has asked to be a member. A lot of action is taking place in the development centre among countries that are not full members of OECD. There is a good mix of countries involved, which is quite exciting. They participate in all our committees and on all our bodies, and so, more and more, they are becoming members of OECD.

      We will certainly focus on helping decision makers, such as all of you, to design, promote and implement better reforms. The political economy of reform is becoming increasingly important. Aart de Geus, former Minister for Social Affairs and Employment in the Netherlands, is leading the charge in our programme on political economy and reform for all our members – and, increasingly, non-members. The current financial crisis has exposed, with remarkable clarity, the many risks of postponing economic reforms. The complications in approving the bailout plan revealed the importance of building stakeholder support for crucial reforms.

To better deliver on all these tasks, it is increasingly relevant for us to come here to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. Your ideas broaden our perspective. Your experience as policy brokers, and as decision makers from a wide variety of countries and cultures, represents both a highly appreciated input and a great opportunity to understand and build together the stable, sustainable and inclusive global economy that our children deserve. The times may be uncertain, but our commitment is not. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT thanked the speakers for their major contribution to the debate. The Assembly benefited from their extensive knowledge and expertise, especially during the uncertain economic times currently being experienced. He thanked Mr Gurría for his contribution to expanding the Assembly’s library.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved earlier this week.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Organisation of debates

2. Statement by Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community

3. Situation in Cyprus

Presentation by Mr Hörster of report of the Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 11699

Presentation by Mr Cilevičs of opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11727

Speakers:

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Laakso (Finland)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr O’Hara (United Kingdom)

Mr Kyprianou (Cyprus)

Mrs Keleş (Turkey)

Mr Branger (France)

Mr Monfils (Belgium)

Mr Vrettos (Greece)

Mr Çavaşoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Replies

Mr Hörster (Germany)

Mr Cilevičs (Latvia)

Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

Amendments Nos. 1, 6, 8,30, 3, 4 9, 10, 11 and an oral amendment adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 11699, as amended, adopted

4. OECD and the World Economy

Presentation by Mrs Lilliehöök of report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Doc. 11687

Presentation by Mrs de Bélem Roseira of contribution of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Doc. 11719

Oral contribution by Mr Zernoski from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population

Presentation by Mr Daems of contribution of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Doc. 11697

Presentation by Mr Vis of contribution of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Doc. 11712

5. Address by Mr Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of OECD

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