Official report of debates: eighth sitting, 4 December 2007 at 15.00

EIGHTH SITTING

Tuesday, 4 December 2007

The sitting was opened at 15.00 with Mr Masseret, President of the Assembly, in the Chair.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The sitting is open.

1. Attendance register

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The names of those substitutes present at this sitting which have been notified to the President will be published with the list of representatives appended to the minutes of proceedings.

2. Adoption of the minutes

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - In accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure, the minutes of proceedings of the last sitting have been distributed.

Are there any comments on these minutes? ...

The minutes are adopted.

3. Terrorist activities on the Turkey/Iraq border

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The next order of the day is the presentation of the report of the Political Committee on terrorist activities on the Turkey/Iraq border (Document 1994), adopted by the Committee this morning.

Under the Rules of Procedure, reports from committees should usually be adopted at least three weeks before the part-session at which they are to be considered. The Political Committee has requested, under Rule 43.4, that the Assembly put this matter on the order of business. I do not think there are any problems because all the group chairmen agreed that it would be a good idea to discuss that report. I take it there are no objections?

I call the Rapporteur, Mr Walter, to present the report. That will be followed by an address by Mr Vecdi Gönül, Minister of Defence of the Turkish Republic, whom I greet and whom I will officially greet on behalf of all of us later. Following that address, there will be a statement by the Ambassador of Iraq to France.

For reasons of timing and people having to travel, the Minister will not be able to answer questions. He has urgent commitments, he has to take a flight and he has important political commitments, which everyone in the Hemicycle will understand. He will make his address and leave right away.

I call Mr Walter. Please do not take more time than allocated to you.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) - I am pleased to be able to introduce the report to the Assembly and to propose the draft resolution and recommendation. I am delighted that we will hear from the Turkish Defence Minister and the Iraqi Ambassador to France on this subject. I remind colleagues that Turkey is a long-term member of NATO, an EU applicant state, and an associate member of Western European Union. Turkey is therefore part of our European family.

The PKK is a terrorist organisation and it is incumbent on us as democratic politicians to give the PKK no comfort, whatever its cause or its justification. It is incumbent on us to give our ally and friend, Turkey, solidarity in the fight against terrorism.

At the time of the break-up of Yugoslavia, we in Europe were critical of ourselves and many outside Europe were critical of us because of our inability to react to what was happening on our own doorstep. We had no political or military structures to deal with that situation when it arose. We now live in a very different world. We have a Common Foreign and Security Policy in place, and a European Security and Defence Policy. We now have both the political and - heaven forbid - the military means to react to crises on our doorstep, and the south-eastern border of Turkey is on our doorstep. Therefore, it is incumbent on us as an Assembly of democratic politicians to discuss that matter.

I believe that it would be a surprise if those in the European Council, in the Political and Security Committee of the European Union and in the European Union Military Committee had not considered that they might have a contingency plan should the situation in that area deteriorate. Some of you will recall that at the time of our last set of meetings in Brussels we met with the Political and Security Committee and the Portuguese Presidency of the Council. We also met with the Chairman of the EU Military Committee, General Bentegeat. I put the question to him: has the EUMC discussed the situation and possible areas where the EU might be able to help? His response was that he never discussed discussions that take place in the committee but he added a rider that one would be surprised if it had not arisen in its discussions.

We are not talking about a military response. We are talking about a political response from all of us in Europe to a crisis that is taking place on the territory of a friend, ally and partner. We are not talking about the wider cultural and constitutional situation with regard to the Turkish people. We are just talking about the security situation as it affects Turkey today.

As I have said, a member state and ally is under attack from a terror group. We cannot ignore that. We must see how we can help. It is our Europe, and our south-eastern border. A vicious terror group is organising and training just over that border in another friendly state - Iraq. That group is launching savage attacks on the sovereign territory of our ally and partner, Turkey. It has been killing over a period of many years and that killing has intensified recently. Many young Turkish soldiers, many of them conscripts, have died. I believe - this is the whole purpose of the resolution before us today - that we in this Assembly should show our solidarity with Turkey. We should encourage our governments collectively through the European Council and individually to take steps to try to avoid any escalation of this problem. We should recognise Turkey's right, as a sovereign nation, to defend itself, but most importantly we should, as allies, create a framework to work on both sides of this border to rid us of this terrorist group.

I believe that we should work with Iraq and our coalition partners, particularly the United States. Europe, collectively, must use its very best endeavours to aid and abet Turkey in dealing with this dire situation, both in its military solution and in removing any excuse for the existence of the PKK and its terror activities. Those activities are taking place in a sovereign, democratic state, and we owe it to our friend Turkey to be there to aid and help it at this critical time.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you. You were exemplary in your time management.

4. Address by Mr Vecdi Gönül, Minister for Defence of the Turkish Republic

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The next order of the day is the address by Mr Vecdi Gönül, Minister for Defence of the Turkish Republic.

Minister, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you back to this Chamber, which you are familiar with through your own membership of the Assembly and the address that you made to us in June 2003. The backdrop to your address, however, is sombre. PKK attacks have recently claimed the lives of many Turkish soldiers and are a great cause of concern. We would agree with a firm condemnation of the European Council Presidency, which strongly condemned PKK terrorist violence in Turkey.

We are also familiar with the important role played by Turkey in the context of security and defence in Europe. The European Union sees that Turkey's position is very similar to its own, and you are involved in crisis-management operations undertaken by the European Union, whether it is ALTHEA or operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Here, we are all used to working together and sharing our ideas with our Turkish colleagues from the Grand National Assembly. It is with great pleasure and great interest that we will hear your address. I invite you to the rostrum to give us your ideas and analysis. Then, as I have reminded everybody, we will have to let you go so that you do not miss your plane home.

Mr GÖNÜL (Minister for Defence of the Turkish Republic) - Mr President, distinguished parliamentarians and dear colleagues, first, I thank you for the opportunity availed to me to be present here today and to address such a distinguished audience on the terrorist activities on the Turkey-Iraq border.

As a previous Turkish parliamentary delegate to the Assembly of WEU, I feel privileged and honoured to return to the Palais d'Iéna to share some of my thoughts with you after five years.

At the very beginning of my speech, I want to thank Mr President for including this issue, which is of paramount importance, in today's agenda.

Despite roots dating back to 1948, WEU has been an active player in European security and defence matters since the beginning of the 1990s. Turkey, being a WEU associate member since 1992, and a full member of the Western European Armaments Group and the Western European Armaments Organisation, has been an organic part of the ongoing developments. Some WEAG and WEAO projects, in which Turkey also takes part, still continue today.

WEU acquis has been, then, a perfect foundation for the establishment of the EU's defence structure and led to the European Security and Defence Policy. I welcome the fact that WEU still serves as an important forum for the discussion of regional and global security matters, as is the case today.

As one of the rare secular democracies based on the supremacy of law and respect for human rights, Turkey plays a determining role in its region on global peace and security. With its unique strategic location, Turkey endeavours to do its best to fulfil the responsibilities arising due to the surrounding uncertainties and has attained to date a thorough success in maintaining its attribute of being an island of peace and stability in such a fragile region.

Turkey has always aimed fully to integrate into contemporary Western civilisation. That is the highest priority on Turkey's agenda. I believe that Turkey, within recent years, has progressed considerably in adapting to Western merit and the rule of law through sound reforms.

Turkey has also continued to focus on democratic reforms and harmonisation of its legislation with that of the EU. In addition, it has met all necessary economic provisions, which provided Turkey with the establishment of a customs union in 1995. Owing to those improvements and accomplishment in meeting the Copenhagen criteria, Turkey has become an EU candidate country and started accession talks.

Let me turn to our main topic. Quite a few of the countries represented in this Assembly, including my own, have been targeted by terrorist groups. Having faced terrorist threat for almost 40 years, Turkey has always been one of the first countries to call for and emphasise a collective international response against terrorism. We are only pleased that, following 9/ll, the international community has become closer in combating terrorism.

Among the numerous terrorist groups that have targeted Turkey's territorial integrity, constitutional order and secular democracy, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL has been the most notorious.

The PKK, which has caused death or injury to almost 35 000 Turkish citizens, has never discriminated in relation to innocent citizens and has included elderly people, women, children and even babies in its slaughter list. Since 1984, more than 30 000 innocent people have been killed as a result of heinous terrorist attacks by the PKK.

Assassination campaigns have been conducted mostly against civil servants living in the eastern and south-eastern parts of Turkey. In those attacks, many innocent civil servants, most of whom were teachers, doctors, engineers and religious functionaries, have been killed or wounded. Almost 2 000 public facilities, including 250 schools, 110 mosques and some churches, 50 dispensaries, and even telephone switchboards, transformer stations and TV reflectors have been destroyed by the PKK. Because of these attacks, almost 316 000 of our citizens have had to leave their home towns.

In the course of 23 years, operating in various countries, the PKK has evolved to become a transnational terrorist and criminal organisation, although it targets mainly Turkey. It does not represent any segment of Turkish citizens of Kurdish ethnic origin at all. The institution in which all Turkish citizens, regardless of their religion and ethnic origin, are represented is the Turkish Parliament. Each Turkish citizen has the same privileges, including the right to be a candidate for local and parliamentary elections, and is also eligible for any governmental or non-governmental position throughout the country.

The PKK's emergence dates back to the 1980s in the Bekaa valley, where it had the appropriate conditions to initiate its detrimental terrorist activities. After the arrest of its brutal leader in 1999, the PKK lost its basis in Syria and was on the brink of dissolution. The decrease in the level of terrorist threat in this period gave the Turkish Government the opportunity to enhance democracy and human rights in Turkey. I will touch on this topic later in my speech. However, since 2003, the PKK has increased its terrorist presence in the north of Iraq and its acts of terror against Turkey have escalated. In comparison to the one civilian victim of PKK terrorism in 2002, 27 civilians had lost their lives as a result of PKK terrorist attacks by October this year.

The PKK presence in the north of Iraq has been emboldened by the power vacuum created in recent years. Today, the PKK terrorists who are sheltered in the mountainous territories in the north of Iraq, adjacent to the land border with Turkey, have become the most imminent and clear threat against Turkey. The north of Iraq currently serves not only as a staging ground for the PKK's cross-border attacks on Turkey, but as a safe haven for its indoctrination and armed training activities, including the use of remote-controlled explosives, logistical support, recruitment and propaganda.

It is estimated that 70% of PKK terrorists, including leading figures, are sheltered in the PKK camps in the north of Iraq. These are among the most wanted terrorist figures being sought by international bulletins. However, they conduct their day-to-day activities freely in the north of Iraq without facing serious restrictions from either the central government or the local authorities.

The PKK spends a considerable amount of money on the maintenance of its terrorists in Iraq. Apart from the donations extorted by its affiliates, mostly in Europe, a significant part of the PKK terrorist acts have been funded through arms and drugs smuggling. I would like to stress that the terrorist leaders who have been living abroad continue to organise and govern the recruitment and transfer of terrorists to the PKK in the north of Iraq, as well as raising funds for the acts of terror against Turkey from the north of Iraq.

The synthetic explosives seized by the Turkish security forces in operations against the PKK have amounted to 2.5 tonnes in the past four years. The explosives used by the PKK in their attacks involving remote-controlled devices, as well as miscellaneous weaponry, have been traced to the former Iraqi army arsenal. The PKK also uses weapons, mines and explosives originating from Western countries, some of which were provided for the use of Iraqi security forces.

The Turkish Government has repeatedly conveyed its concerns and its expectations of the Iraqi side in a series of diplomatic initiatives. These expectations include an official declaration of the PKK as a terrorist organisation by the Iraqi Government, the closure of the terrorist camps in Iraqi territory, the prevention of cross-border infiltration by terrorist groups from the Iraqi side into Turkish territory, and the extradition of the leading PKK terrorists to Turkey or their prosecution by the Iraqi authorities. Turkish authorities have provided detailed intelligence and offered operational assistance to the Iraqi side. On 28 September 2007, in Ankara, the Interior Ministers of Turkey and Iraq signed the agreement on combating terrorism. Turkey has also shared its concerns and expectations with the United States authorities on various occasions in different formats.

The Turkish nation is determined to end PKK terrorism by all means necessary. There should be no doubt that the measures taken by our government to combat terrorism will be taken with full respect to human rights and the rule of law. Having shown the utmost restraint in the face of escalating terrorist attacks launched from the north of Iraq, the Turkish Government has now made it clear that it is considering taking all the measures that it is compelled to take in exercising its legitimate and sovereign right to protect its people. These measures involve cross-border operations by the Turkish security forces into Iraqi territory to root out the terrorist nests that cannot be removed by the Iraqi authorities.

Obviously, no country in the world would remain indifferent in the face of the growing anger and outrage of the public over the deaths of their boys and girls each and every day, or allow any terror organisation to find a safe haven in its immediate neighbourhood. In this vein, the government forwarded to the parliament a request for authorisation for a cross-border operation to destroy the terrorist elements outside Turkish territory. On 17 October, the Turkish Parliament overwhelmingly authorised the cross-border operations. The almost-unanimous decision fully reflects the will of our people and the resolve of the Turkish Parliament. The decision is the result of a long process contributed to by each and every segment of Turkish society, including our security forces fighting the PKK terrorists.

Turkey has always made it clear that it is in its best interests that the territorial integrity and sovereign unity of Iraq be protected. To support Iraqi political unity and territorial integrity, the ongoing developments in the north of Iraq should not be overlooked, since they endanger the territorial integrity of Iraq. Considering the situation in this zone of Iraq, the local administration seems to be disregarding the authority of the central government.

Turkey introduced, and was a major force behind, Iraq's Expanded Neighbors Conference in 2003, the latest round of which took place on 3 November 2007 in Istanbul. Turkey supports the Iraqi transition to democracy, political reform, elections and reconstruction efforts. Turkey has also been one of the main suppliers of aid, goods and services to Iraq, sending at least 1 000 trucks every day.

Let me reaffirm that, in the event of the cross-border operation by the Turkish security forces, Turkey's target is not an invasion of Iraqi territory and our aim is not the local administration in the north of the country. The single and clear target would be the destruction of the PKK terrorist presence in northern Iraq. Any operation will be carried out in accordance with international norms.

I would like to bring to your attention the precautions taken by the Turkish Government against terrorist activities. I want to emphasise that Turkey is cautious about distinguishing our citizens living in Turkey from the brutal terrorists. According to the results of the latest parliamentary elections last July, the majority of parliamentarians elected from the eastern and south-eastern regions belong to our political party. As stated in the report, the vast majority of Turkish citizens with Kurdish origins do not want to be associated with the PKK's demands and intend to remain as Turkish citizens.

On the one hand, the Turkish Government, with its security forces and all other means, struggles with the terrorists. On the other hand, the government invests in, and launches many projects to enhance the development of the region.

To achieve these goals, the Turkish Government has introduced significant legal, judicial and administrative reforms with a view to strengthening the rule of law, civil liberties and democratic freedoms. In addition, all Turkish citizens freely enjoy and maintain their local culture and are able to use local languages other than Turkish in the media and for social purposes.

As a result of the reforms and the comprehensive measures taken so far, 152 000 citizens have returned to their homes. Additionally, about 371 million Turkish lira, about €209 million, has been paid to those people identified as having been damaged by terrorist activities and to bring displaced citizens back to their home towns.

The Turkish Government will continue its diplomatic efforts to encourage the Iraqi Assembly to fulfil our legitimate expectations within the framework of cooperation and good neighbourly relations between the two countries, as well as other international obligations on the Government of Iraq. This issue was taken up during the reciprocal high-level visits between the United States and Turkey over the past few weeks. As these efforts continue, Turkey will bring its legitimate concerns to the attention of the international community at large.

The scourge of terrorism can be overcome only through international cooperation in combating all the terrorist threats, whatever their particular context or pretext. NATO and the EU's supportive initiatives, statements and decisions are very important for us. These efforts share our concerns regarding the struggle with terrorism.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr Robert Walter for his effort in preparing his draft report, even if I do not fully agree and associate myself with all the contents. I believe the unity and solidarity that will emerge as a result of the discussions of the report will be the most expressive message to the brutal terrorists and another step towards eradicating the PKK terror organisation.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Assembly of WEU for giving us the opportunity to share our concerns and expectations with our European friends. I hope that I have been able to give you a general overview for the debate which follows.

I thank you very much for your kind attention.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you, and we wish you a pleasant journey home.

5. Statement by His Excellency Mr Mowafak Abboud, Ambassador, Iraqi Republic

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The next order of the day is the statement by His Excellency Mr Mowafak Abboud, Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq to France.

We have heard about the PKK's activities destabilising the region. Our concern is possible negative developments. We look forward to hearing your analysis of the situation, Excellency, which will inform our thinking and guide our recommendations.

Mr ABBOUD (Ambassador, Iraqi Republic) - Thank you very much for inviting a representative of Iraq to discuss terrorist activities on the Iraq-Turkey border. It is an honour for me to be here to speak about the subject.

Saddam's regime attached little value to peaceful relations with the outside world. Under Saddam, Iraq adopted a foreign policy of confrontation and aggression with its neighbours and the world, which led to international isolation and sanctions. By contrast, the new Iraq seeks to be a responsible and fully integrated member of the international community, at peace with its neighbours and the world. The current Iraqi foreign policy is committed to overcoming the legacy of mistrust and hostility and to building positive, bilateral relations with neighbouring countries, based on mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs. This will allow respect of our common interests and the security and peace that are our priorities.

We extend the hand of cooperation and friendship to all our neighbours. We have made persistent efforts, through a transparent and clearly communicated foreign policy, to reassure them of our peaceful intentions and our firm determination to prevent subversive forces from undermining Iraq's unity or territorial integrity.

We strive to replace a climate of confrontation and suspicion with a new atmosphere of trust and confidence in the region, through ongoing dialogue with each neighbouring country on the mechanism and arrangements necessary to implement security and economic cooperation in order to improve trust and confidence between Iraq and its neighbours.

On these guiding principles, Iraq stands firmly with Turkey in the fight to combat the terrorist threat of the PKK and has expressed its readiness to take all necessary measures to curb PKK activities on the border with Iraq. In line with this position, the Iraqi Government has taken a number of practical steps, the first of which is the formation of a ministerial crisis cell to deal with the situation. This group has already decided a number of measures, including activating the Iraqi-Turkish-American committee, closing all PKK offices in Iraq and terminating the presence of its members on Iraqi soil. Secondly, the group received the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr Ali Babacan, in Baghdad and reaffirmed Iraq's commitment to preventing the PKK from using Iraqi territory to launch its terrorist attacks against Turkey. We also urged restraint on the Turkish Government and urged that it refrain from using the military option inside Iraqi territory. Iraq believes that such an option would not solve the problem and could complicate security and political challenges inside Iraq.

Thirdly, an Iraqi delegation headed by the Defence Minister visited Turkey to reassure the Turkish Government of Iraq's willingness to assist in the battle to combat the PKK, which Iraq considers to be a terrorist organisation. During the visit, Iraq made a number of proposals to deal with the issue in a way that preserves Iraqi sovereignty, including rebuilding, reorganising and arming Iraqi frontier posts on the Turkish border to prevent the PKK from crossing the border.

Fourthly, Iraqi and Turkish Foreign Ministers, along with United States Secretary of State Rice, held a meeting during Iraq's Expanded Neighbors Conference in Istanbul at the beginning of November 2007. The meeting was substantive and comprehensive in discussing the practical means to face the terrorist threat of the PKK.

Let me conclude by stressing the firm commitments of the Iraqi Government to maintaining dialogue and cooperation with the Turkish Government to identity and enhance their common action to protect the two countries' interests from the threats of the PKK and other terrorist groups, which endanger the security and stability of both nations and the world.

Thank you.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you very much, Excellency.

6. Terrorist activities on the Turkey/Iraq border (continued)

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The next order of the day is the debate on the Political Committee's report. We have already heard from Mr Walter, so I will now open the debate. I have 12 speakers on the list, so I shall use my authority to restrict speaking times. I shall first call the three speakers on behalf of the groups, the first of whom is Mike Hancock. He has five minutes and the other speakers will be confined to three minutes.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - I appreciate that a number of members wish to speak.

I am delighted that we are holding this debate and am grateful for the Political Committee's initiative in instigating it. The two interesting debates in the Political Committee once again bore witness to the influence of parliamentary scrutiny. Anyone who attended the Political Committee yesterday and this morning could not say that it was not a good debate on an important issue.

The Assembly should welcome the Rapporteur's report and, along with the Turkish Minister for Defence, I pay tribute to the effort that Bob Walter put in to get the report into its current shape.

I am delighted that the Committee was able to reach a reasonable consensus. We heard some strongly held views, particularly from those who support the linkage of this issue to that of Cyprus, who resisted the enthusiasm of others such as me wholeheartedly to endorse the report's recommendations. They had the perfect right to do that. However, I want to stress that this is about Turkey's right to defend its own people on its own territory from terrorist attacks perpetrated and led by an organisation that bases itself in a neighbouring state.

Many of the countries represented here today have been similarly affected. The United Kingdom in particular sustained hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks on United Kingdom service personnel and civilians which were organised, financed and carried out by people living in states neighbouring the United Kingdom. We did not go after them in the way that may have been suggested by some. I remember the press on more than one occasion demanding that we should have a more proactive role, hunt down IRA terrorists in the Republic of Ireland and take the battle elsewhere. One classic example was when three IRA people were shot dead at the border in Gibraltar, albeit under somewhat dubious circumstances. Nevertheless it was an occasion when the British took the issue outside the domain of the United Kingdom, albeit to a dependent territory.

The report is a realistic appraisal of the current situation. It urges Turkey to do a number of things. Our Turkish colleagues, supported by members of the Committee, resisted the temptation just to damn the report and to say that it did not accommodate all Turkey's demands. They also tabled amendments that were accepted by the Committee to make the document more realistic and purposeful.

The Assembly would be led down a very dangerous path if it were to amend this report in the way that members tried to do earlier today and yesterday. To try to link it with northern Cyprus would be a grave error. To try to water down the recommendation would also be a dereliction of our responsibility and would not deal with the issue.

I do not think that anyone in politics today would seriously suggest that Turkey does not have the right properly to defend its territory and its citizens. If that means that it has to make a proportionate response to terrorist attacks where it is known where they are planned and based, it should be able to do so. It has become the norm, perhaps regrettably, that countries all over the world have taken it upon themselves to go after terrorists in the way that Turkey would probably do if the opportunity afforded itself. It has not done so as yet. Perhaps that is a good sign, but I have great sympathy for the Iraqi regime because it does not think that it has the backing that is necessary to allow it to do what it should be able to do, which is to tackle the issue. However, it should be told loud and clear that Iraq should not be a safe haven for terrorists. We do not want other countries to be a safe haven for insurgents in Iraq and Iraq itself has a responsibility to deal with the insurgents that go into Turkey.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you, Mike.

I call Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) (summary) welcomed the excellent report, which dealt with a very difficult issue. The governing statutes of both WEU and NATO recognised the obligation to provide assistance, and it was very important to stress this point continually. There was also recognition that Turkey had been taking responsibility in the region, particularly with respect to making progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question. The Assembly should support Turkey. Eight weeks ago, a large percentage of Turkish citizens had said that they would support cross-border actions. The primary solution should be a political one as military solutions should always be the final resort. There did seem to be sufficient political will to make progress.

He also stressed the importance of removing the basis of the support for the PKK. Turkey had taken measures in this regard but more needed to be done. It was vital to protect Turkey's interests in ensuring peace. Any military action, however, had to be proportionate. Alluding to the remarks made by the Turkish Defence Minister, he said he hoped that steps towards peace could be achieved.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I call Mr Pangalos.

Mr PANGALOS (Greece) (summary) expressed frustration with the debate. He said that he would have liked to have put questions to the Turkish Minister who had to leave after delivering a speech written by his staff. It would also have been useful to have been able to put questions to the Ambassador. While no one would disagree that Turkey had the right to defend itself from terrorism, this situation was different.

The Iraqi people did not want foreign troops on their soil, and the international community had to respond to this fact. Turkey had one of the world's largest armies, and it was reasonable to expect it to solve problems in its own territory for itself. If it could not, one had to wonder why. One also had to ask whether an incursion into Iraq to neutralise a few hundred or thousand PKK fighters would in fact solve the problems of terrorism in the environs of Istanbul, which was such a long way away. This problem needed further investigation.

While he did not wish to question the statements made by Mr Gönül, it was important to recognise that armies of occupation, whatever their initial intentions, often remained in place for a very long time, and that this was often a very bad idea. One only had to look at events in Iraq, where countries had sent in occupying armies based on false premises, and had announced their intention of establishing democratic institutions, but were now bogged down in deteriorating conditions. It was essential another failure along these lines should not be allowed to occur, particularly in such a short-sighted and poorly considered manner.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Please remember that the time limit for speeches is three minutes.

I call Mr Vis.

Mr VIS (United Kingdom) - Allow me to thank the Rapporteur, Mr Walter, for his report on terrorist activities on the Turkey-Iraq border. I do not agree with it, however.

I associate myself entirely with Mr Walter's prime notion that terrorist activities by the PKK and others are to be condemned in all their forms and instances. I also agree that infiltrations and occupations are to be condemned in all their forms and instances. I am also of the opinion that it is wise to take an approach to matters - particularly political ones - that is as comprehensive as possible.

Therefore, I reminded the members of the Political Committee of the occupation by Turkey in 1974 of 37% of Cyprus - now a full member of the European Union. I repeat that political message to you, as members of the Assembly, as this occupation is still going on.

I am aware that history did not begin in 1974, but that in itself does not justify the present position. There are 43 000 Turkish military personnel in the occupied part of the small island of Cyprus, as well as some 160 000 imported Turkish civilians - many with full voting rights. That has to be contrasted with a Turkish-Cypriot population of only about 70 000 civilians. Many tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots have fled the occupied territory of Cyprus.

Mr Hancock and others have stated that I have confused the immediacy of PKK terrorist activities with the long-standing difficulties for the legitimate Government of Cyprus since the 1974 invasion by Turkey. I reject those views as it is dangerous not to remember and to give insufficient weight to recent history. Incidentally, PKK activities go back a long time as well.

In that context, it is wise for Turkey to consider withdrawing its 43 000 troops from Cyprus and employing them at the border of Turkey and Iraq to defend against any PKK incursion into Turkey and to stem any PKK terrorist activities, rather than calling on WEU nations, as members of the EU, to assist Turkey in this instance.

Such a political move would also mean that Turkey's application for EU membership might be judged in a different light. It is inconceivable that an EU applicant nation should be able to occupy any area of a full member of the EU, particularly in the light of numerous United Nations resolutions on the issue.

The report contains many positive points, but, unfortunately, I am unable to vote for it as I find its overall analysis totally unsatisfactory.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I call Mr Greenway.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) - I find it inconceivable that an associate member of WEU and member of NATO - a country that has been one of the strongest allies in Europe of most of the countries represented in this Assembly and one that is a member of our family of Europe - should not be willingly supported by its friends in its hour of need. This is an hour of need.

I have sought to catch your eye, Mr President, because I was in Turkey with our colleague Mr Çavusoglu, who is here today, to chair a seminar on Euro-Asian immigration on the day when 12 young Turkish soldiers were killed by the PKK. I want to give this message to all our colleagues in the Assembly: please do not underestimate the sense of public outrage and anger that this atrocity, and the many others, has caused.

People are deeply shocked and angry that their allies in the West appear not to be capable of providing a suitable response to these terrorist atrocities. We may profoundly disagree with that analysis, but the truth is that that is what Turkish public opinion is feeling, as evidenced by the demonstrations on the streets, even of the seaside resort of Antalya where we held our conference.

I want to make three other points. During our seminar, one thing became very clear - the huge pressure of people in the border regions between Turkey and Iraq and Iran. Tens of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers are creating huge logistical problems for the Turkish authorities.

I agree entirely with the analysis of my colleague Bob Walter, which is that America is in an awkward position because it has supported the Kurds in Iraq - for obviously understandable reasons. However, when we face international terrorism of this order, difficult choices have to be made. In this case, the difficult choice is to do what the Americans have been doing through their foreign policy for the past six and a half years - fight a war on terror.

If we are absolutely determined to fight a war on terror, we cannot pick and choose countries in which to stand aside. That is simply not an acceptable solution.

I thank you, Mr President, for allowing us to debate this matter today. I hope that we can return to the subject in the future. This Assembly must send a strong message of support to the Turkish people - our friends and members of our family - by supporting my colleague Mr Walter's report.

The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Austin.

Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom) - I hope that no one will read into my comments any words of comfort for the PKK or for those who commit acts of terror. We are right to stand firm against terrorism wherever it is, and it is incumbent on all our governments to work to cut off its fuel supply, in the form of money laundering, trafficking and the supply of arms to terrorist groups, wherever they are.

I also wish to acknowledge the importance of Turkey's membership of NATO, its associate membership of WEU and its aspiration to join the European Union. There are, however, aspects of the report that give me cause for concern. I notice that certain bits have disappeared from the original memorandum. The original article 8 referred to the struggle between the PKK and the Turkish authorities. Although I support the direction in which the Defence Minister - and the former Foreign Minister, Mr Gül, now the President - have gone in bringing Turkey into the European family of nations, we cannot ignore what went on under the government of Tansu Çiller.

The Defence Minister referred to the depopulation of Kurdish areas. That cannot be laid wholly at the door of the PKK. It was the Çiller government which destroyed more than 700 villages and drove people from their homes under the iniquitous village guard system. The extra-judicial killings, the detention without trial and the disappearances have stopped - we hope - but we cannot deny that they took place under the Turkish Government of Mrs Çiller.

The second thing that has disappeared from the report is the reference to Mr Öcalan's call from his prison cell for the PKK to work peacefully. That fell on the deaf ears of the Turkish Government and of the PKK, but that was not the first time that Mr Öcalan had made that appeal. Before he was in captivity, he called for a ceasefire from both sides on at least two occasions. He also called for the international community to broker discussions on the aspirations of the Kurdish people within the territory of the Turkish state while recognising its territorial integrity. It is a pity that those talks never took place and that those requests fell on deaf ears.

It is right that Prime Minister Erdogan has called for a diplomatic solution, but such a solution will involve recognising the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people. That would isolate the extremists and the terrorists. There is a reference in the report to the DTP. The Kurds are urged to use constitutional and democratic means, but when they form political parties - whether DEP or HADEP - they are closed down by the constitutional court and the democratic process is closed to them. We need to give more support to Turkey for the reforms that are taking place. We need to send a message to Turkey that there will be no artificial barriers to its eventual membership of the EU, provided that it meets the criteria. We must make that message loud and clear. We must also appeal to Turkey to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people, their language and their cultural and political rights.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I call Mr Çavusoglu.

Mr ÇAVUSOGLU (Turkey) - As we are all well aware, the PKK terror organisation enjoys freedom of movement in the north of Iraq with the utmost impunity. We approached with understanding the difficulties facing the Iraqi Government, and for a long time thought that the necessary measures would eventually be taken. We continued to seek effective cooperation with the Iraqi Government as well as with the United States.

We did not adopt our motion suddenly. We had been asking the United States and Iraqi authorities to stop the terror in Iraq and to hand over the leaders of the PKK terrorist groups, whose names are also in the International Red Bulletin. I was a member of the Turkish Delegation when we met our counterparts in both those countries and in Turkey. In the meantime, PKK terror continues to claim many innocent lives in Turkey. No country would allow any terror organisation to find safe haven in its immediate vicinity. Turkey will therefore exercise every right stemming from international law to eliminate this threat.

As mentioned in Mr Walter's report, and as Minister Gönül stressed, Turkey supports the territorial integrity, sovereignty and unity of Iraq. This is not the first time that Turkey has stressed this point. Before the United States invaded Iraq, it asked Turkey to go in together with it, using Turkish troops. The first condition that Turkey put in place during the debate with the United States and the neighbouring countries related to the territorial integrity, sovereignty and unity of Iraq. The second condition was that all Iraq's natural and energy resources, including oil, should be enjoyed by all the ethnic and religious groups in Iraq, not just by one or two of them. So this is not the first time that Turkey has expressed these wishes and principles regarding Iraq.

Any counterterrorism operation will be conducted within the framework of international law, and its only target will be to eliminate the presence of PKK terrorism in the north of Iraq. We want our friends to move beyond verbal support and to take firm measures against the PKK. We need their support in combating PKK terrorist activity - such as drug smuggling, people trafficking, using trafficked people for illegal activities, and money laundering - in European member states.

The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Mercan.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey) - I have listened to my colleagues with interest. Let me first thank Bob Walter for his excellent report. As my colleagues listened to the Minister of Defence of Turkey, I am sure that they would have understood the reasons for, and the scope of, the cross-border military operation, if it ever takes place. Let me reiterate that Turkey would never have thought of engaging in cross-border operations if she did not have to. The operation would be limited to fighting terrorism, which is our right under international agreements. I believe that everyone should support that.

Some of my colleagues in the Political Committee and here in the Chamber have tried to link Turkey's efforts to fight terrorism to the issue of Cyprus. I did not understand that link. I am open to discussion on Cyprus, what has happened there and what might happen in the future. I am open to discussion on Turkey's initiative to improve democratic standards, freedom of speech and other matters, but I have difficulty linking those with terrorism. I can assure the Assembly that Turkey has a sufficient amount of soldiers to protect its borders.

Turkey has a long-lasting tradition of differentiating between terrorists and innocent civilians. We must stand together to fight terrorism just as we did when the United States and its allies fought against al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan. We can bring up many other issues where Turkey helped to fight terrorism, regardless of whether the terrorists concerned had attacked Turkey or not.

We must come together, regardless of our feelings about my country. You may not like Turkey or you may have an affiliation with another country. You may hate my country, but there will come a time when you will have an opportunity to express those feelings. Today is not that time. Today is the time where we should show solidarity against terrorism and terrorist activities, including those of the PKK.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you. I assure you, Mr Mercan, that there is no hatred in this Hemicycle. All we have are men and women expressing political views.

The next speaker is Mr Pflug.

Mr PFLUG (Germany) (summary) said he agreed with Mr Mercan that the issue should not be compared with other situations, particularly that of Cyprus. The PKK had been classified as a terrorist organisation in Germany since 1993, which demonstrated Germany's determination to combat terrorism. He reminded Turkish colleagues that the problem should not be reduced to just combating the PKK. He was relieved that Turkey had not intervened recently in Iraq and asked his Turkish colleagues to consider the situation of Kurdish people within Turkey. He was concerned that, by banning the DTP, the Kurdish people would only be represented by the PKK within Turkey and that would have serious consequences.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I cannot see Mrs Jipa, so I call Mr Varvitsiotis.

Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) - We support the struggle of Turkey and its fight against terrorism. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the families of victims of terrorist attacks and, since we have had terrorist attacks in our country, we understand the personal pain. I should express my gratitude to Mr Walter for his report, but I am sceptical on one point regarding the green light that is given to use military force outside the borders of Turkey.

I am sorry that the Turkish Minister is not here to answer questions. The role of the military in Turkey is particular and different. Turkey's Parliament took a vote on a casus belli against Greece if Greece exercised its territorial rights. Instead of the Turkish Parliament, or the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish Parliament, my friend Mr Mercan, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs responding, it is the Turkish military that responds to Greece's request to lift such a casus belli. I find that unusual in a European country.

Secondly, although Turkey has a huge military establishment of more than 1 million people and has mobilised hundreds of thousands of troops along its south-eastern border with Iraq, Turkey's Aegean army remains intact in numbers and power and maintains over 1 000 landing boats. Where is that army focused? On the Greek islands? Or are they trying to avert an attack from Greece? This is difficult for us to understand as Greece is by no means an enemy of Turkey in terms of its territorial integrity. By giving extraordinary authorisation to the Turkish army without the proper supervision of the political powers and the political groups of Turkey and especially its sovereign government is not something that will help either the fight against terrorism or its path towards Europe. So I remain very sceptical about point three in the draft resolution.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) -The last speaker is Mr Magdeev.

Mr MAGDEEV (Russia) (summary) thanked Mr Walter and said that he fully understood Turkey's approach to the situation with the PKK. He had questions for the Minister and therefore it was unfortunate that he was no longer present. In a situation such as this, all political and diplomatic tools had to be fully utilised. He was concerned that any escalation would cause a further increase in oil prices. He said that it was estimated that 3 000 PKK fighters could disperse themselves across the frontier, and that would have a huge impact on the civilian population. It should also be expected that the PKK would be able to recruit more fighters. He was concerned that the resolution in the report could worsen the situation.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Bob Walter to pull the loose ends together.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) - This afternoon's debate proves the worth of our being able to debate topical subjects - it brings the Assembly alive. We were delighted to hear contributions from the Turkish Defence Minister and the Iraqi Ambassador.

I emphasise that Turkey has the right to defend itself and that this Assembly should show some solidarity towards a friend and partner.

Mr Pangalos asked whether Turkey can solve its own problems on its own territory. Of course it can, but those problems are exacerbated and multiplied as the PKK is replenished from outside the state. Turkey should be able to seek out and identify the sources of those terrorists and, we hope, with the cooperation of the international community on both sides of the border, rid itself of the PKK.

Mr Vis mentioned Cyprus, an EU state and participant in WEU. The issue that he raised is perhaps for another, lengthy debate, but I noted what he said.

Mr Austin said that we should recognise the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people. Items 4 and 5 of the report "Encourage Turkey to continue its political reform process respecting the rights of all citizens including those of Kurdish origin" and "Call on all Kurdish communities living in the region to continue their pursuit of their cultural identity solely by peaceful means".

Mr Varvitsiotis said that Turkey has a right to defend itself but questioned the use of the term "disproportionate". That is an accepted term in international law, and we have seen examples of countries disproportionately defending themselves, but Turkey has a right to be proportionate.

I thank Mr Hancock, Mr Haibach, Mr Çavusoglu, Mr Mercan, Mr Pflug and Mr Magdeev, whose comments were extremely helpful. I hope that the Assembly will feel able to support the recommendation.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you.

Does Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, Chairman of the Committee, wish to speak?

Mr AGRAMUNT FONT de MORA (Spain) (summary) thanked the President, and said that his Committee had had an intense and lengthy discussion about the report and its amendments. The Committee had raised lots of questions about further work in the area. The many amendments tabled to the report had not changed its balanced political structure. The report reminded Iraq of its responsibility to its Turkish neighbour and also called on Turkey to support the Iraqi Government and to refrain from taking any disproportionate action against the PKK. There was an opportunity for Turkey to cooperate further with the United States and its troops in Iraq. The report had been passed by the committee with two votes against and three abstentions.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you. We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 1994.

Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on the draft recommendation.

Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...

That is not the case.

We shall vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

The draft recommendation is adopted.

7. Address of Mr François Fillon, Prime Minister of France, representing the incoming French WEU Presidency, delivered by Her Excellency Mrs Christine Roger, Permanent Representative of France to the WEU Council and the EU Political and Security Committee

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Mr Laurent Wauquiez, State Secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister, is unable to be with us this afternoon but we are fortunate to be joined by Her Excellency Mrs Christine Roger, France's Permanent Representative to the WEU Council and the EU Political and Security Committee, who will deliver a statement on behalf of Prime Minister Mr François Fillon, representing the incoming French WEU Presidency.

Ambassador Roger, you have the floor.

Mrs ROGER (Permanent Representative of France to the WEU council and the EU Political and Security Committee) (Translation) - Mr President, honourable members, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the French Government whom I represent today, I should like to thank you for the invitation to speak before this Assembly as a country which will hold the Presidency of Western European Union from 1 January.

My Government would firstly like to thank your Assembly for the way in which it spreads a culture of common European security and defence throughout the national parliaments of a large number of countries, far beyond the countries of the European Union. Your debates and the ensuing reports are recognised for their quality and interest. I should like to make special mention of the report that your President has recently drafted on the Reform Treaty and which you are discussing this afternoon.

As my country is preparing to assume the Presidency of WEU for a year, I should like to mention the progress achieved in European defence.

The European security and defence policy - as you are no doubt aware - is one of the most dynamic policies in the European project. Beyond the doctrines, institutions and reference texts, the number of civil and military operations now being conducted around the world and that we have been carrying out for only five years bear witness to this.

We are contributing to the resolution of major crises in all the continents, in the Middle East, in Africa, Afghanistan and even, in 2005, Indonesia.

Today, I should like to highlight two areas where the action of the European Union is particularly outstanding, consistent and coherent. The first is in the Balkans where the European Union assumed its responsibilities as an actor on the international stage for the first time when, in 2003, it conducted its first operation - operation EUFOR/CONCORDIA - in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with the use of NATO planning capabilities.

It then took over from NATO in Bosnia with operation ALTHEA which is still under way. These are partnerships we have developed with NATO, as part of the Berlin Plus agreements, which allow us to act in the area of European defence.

It is indeed clear that stabilising the region and ensuring it is firmly rooted in Europe remains a key priority for European countries. The Union faces a major challenge: it will have to assume its responsibilities in Kosovo. It is preparing to deploy a rule-of-law and police mission to see the region through the future. We hope that in this way the EU will be able to contribute to the stability of Kosovo and to the security of its people and minorities at a key moment in the history of the region.

The second area where we have been very active is Africa which is gradually emerging as the second priority area for action, unfortunately because of the persistent crises in the continent, but also because of the need to help the United States and, increasingly, the African Union to respond to these crises.

The European Union played a major role in settling the Great Lakes crisis, intervening twice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: first in 2003 to support the United Nations and put an end to the particularly brutal massacres, and then in 2006, at the behest of the United Nations, to ensure the election process in the country ran smoothly.

The Union provided invaluable support to the United Nations, with Germany leading a European military operation in 2006.

Today, we are still present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo providing support for security sector reform which is a major challenge in all the areas concerned: the police, justice and the armed forces. The United Nations recognises the challenge and the European Union is making contributions in the three abovementioned sectors.

Soon, the European Union will deploy near Darfur to help the displaced populations and refugees in the east of Chad and the north-east of the Central African Republic. It is an autonomous operation we are currently preparing and will no doubt be the most difficult operation. It is a significant challenge that involves sending nearly 4 000 men 5 000 km away from Europe in an open crisis that the international community has recognised as deeply worrying and on which we must act. I would add that the present difficulties in the east of Chad only serve to highlight the need for a stabilising presence in this region to protect the civilian populations.

This operation is to be led by an Irish general officer and about 15 countries will take part. France will have a major role, as will Ireland, Poland, Sweden, Austria and Romania. It is a new stage in the development of European defence, marked by a growing commitment from a large number of countries. All the member states of the European Union are in a way acquiring the capacity, the will to manage crises beyond the European territory.

Whether these operations are in Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East or Afghanistan, the European Union brings its own hallmark to bear, its specific added value. We might say that one characteristic of the EU is its ability to cover the full range of crisis-response operations, from the military sector to the civilian sector, benefiting from the link between the military capability and the civilian capability for reconstruction and development aid. These are the means at the disposal of the European community which, as you know, are considerable. Such flexibility - the ability to take on the full range of crisis-management operations - is a very important point and unique to the European Union.

A second characteristic of the EU is its capacity to act in close cooperation with international organisations, which is clearly much appreciated by the United Nations or the African Union.

A third and final characteristic is the complementary manner in which we work with NATO, both operating alongside it - as is the case in Afghanistan where a European police operation was launched last June and as will be the case shortly in Kosovo - and working with it. This was the case in Bosnia, as I have just mentioned, in the framework of the still ongoing operation ALTHEA under the Berlin Plus agreements. Such cooperation should be further developed and I should like to recall that we do not see any competition between NATO and the European Union. I would like to stress that 21 of the 26 NATO members are also members of the European Union. It would make no sense to set these two bodies in opposition, we need them both. Such is the spirit of the French President's message. He has clearly reaffirmed the need for both organisations at a time when he is making the relaunch of European defence one of his top priorities.

Today, Europeans must enter a new phase in the development of an effective European defence capability. It is what European citizens want and it is justified by the growing number of crises and threats. ESDP is no longer an ambition, it is an obligation. Development of the European security and defence policy has given European citizens a sense of responsibility, a sense of Europe's particular responsibility in crisis management. European citizens have very high expectations, the figures remain very constant and are worth recalling: 74% of Europeans are in favour of a common security and defence policy, and 61% think that in 50 years' time the European Union will be a leading diplomatic power in the world. This is what the citizens of Europe expect, it is what they want and it is our duty to make it happen.

Europeans must be ready to respond. Our governments must be ready; we must adapt the ESDP instruments to achieve these tasks. Those instruments must be usable, ready when we need them; in this respect, there is still a long way to go.

The main challenge facing the European Union is, in our view, capabilities. We need the appropriate capabilities to be able to face the threats, risks and challenges. We know that today they are inadequate and, above all, not sufficiently organised to respond to all crises. You, the parliamentarians, have a very important role to play in the decisions that must be made, in each country of the European Union, to increase defence budgets and overall European defence spending. We are of course aware that defence budgets in every member state are subject to constraints, but we feel that the burden should be shared more equitably between those countries that currently provide all or most of the funding and other countries that contribute less.

We also believe that, in order optimise defence capabilities, defence spending must be rationalised between the member states of the European Union. I should add that civilian capabilities also need to be mobilised. This is a major challenge for future crises.

We were speaking of Kosovo just now. It is a civil operation we are going to deploy, with 1 800 personnel on the ground, including policemen and magistrates. Such resources are rare in our member states. We have to be capable of mobilising them and ensuring coordinated action so that we can rise to this kind of challenge.

Given the context I have just described - of great expectations and major constraints for the development of European defence - on behalf of the French Government I should like to recall that European defence is one of the priorities for France in the coming months. The French President has made it one of the top priorities for the upcoming French Presidency of the European Union when it takes over from the Slovenian Presidency on 1 July 2008. Part of its programme will include updating the European security strategy which was adopted by the European Union at the end of 2003 to improve its external action.

In the face of global challenges and the threats hanging over the security of Europe, the European Union, through this strategy, has been able to set itself the objectives of defending its security and promoting its values. We believe that, on the eve of the new treaty's entry into force and five years after the European security and defence policy first became operational, Europeans need to assess the achievements of this strategy - which remains largely valid - taking account of strategic developments, new threats and new challenges. In our view, the objective, our objective should be to adapt the European Union's response to the changes in the international environment. France is currently preparing a White Paper on national defence and security, which will be submitted to the French President next spring and which will be our contribution to the process. To this end, France is actively consulting its European partners.

Another aspect we should mention is preparing for the entry into force of the new treaty in the area of defence.

In reforming the provisions on EU external action, the new treaty opens up new possibilities in European defence, and we believe that Europeans must explore these possibilities together, even before they are implemented. But, perhaps more importantly, in the coming months the European Union will need us to make the decisions necessary to meet the expectations raised by the particular place it holds in the eyes of our citizens.

The European Union will have to relaunch its armaments policy and rationalise its defence capabilities. It will have to rely on its own operations planning capacity, which today is only virtual and has not been used yet even though needs are increasing. The European Union will have to improve the capacity of European armies to work together.

Mr President, honourable members, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is sometimes criticised for not taking specific action. The development of European defence is precisely one of the areas where concrete measures are being taken. Europe's responsibilities are thus strengthened so that it is capable of defending itself and protecting its citizens. European defence has developed spectacularly over the last few years. We hope that future developments will be equally spectacular and that once again progress will be made. We also hope that the French Presidency of the European Union will be the occasion to make further progress, that we will be in a position to take the decisions necessary to meet the expectations of our citizens.

The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Thank you. Our rules of procedure do not allow us to put any questions to you - only government members are entitled to such treatment. You are now free to go, or to stay. I believe that you have to take part in the debate on the defence White Paper.

(Mr Prescott, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair)

8. The Reform Treaty and Europe's security and defence
- reply to the annual report of the Council

The PRESIDENT - the next order of the day is the debate on the report of the Political Committee on the Reform Treaty and Europe's security and defence - reply to the annual report of the Council, Document 1979, and the vote on the draft recommendation and four amendments; and the draft order.

I call Mr Masseret to present the report.

Mr MASSERET (France) (summary) said that he would keep his remarks brief and focus on what the Lisbon Treaty meant for European Security and Defence Policy. In terms of the development of European defence, some measures, outside of Lisbon, under the Nice Treaty, had already become effective. He stressed the importance of achieving a gradual definition of defence policy. It was the definition which was a gradual process and might lead to a common defence policy.

There were queries about the common defence clauses in the Lisbon Treaty, which might or might not establish a defence obligation. There was a question of degrees of obligation - a good analogy would be the way in which one might have an obligation to reimburse someone but not to repay them. The clause left some states as neutral, although not everybody agreed with this provision or felt bound by it. The solidarity clause obliged nations to help one another in the event of natural disasters or terrorist attacks; in fact, this had already been honoured in the case of Spain after the Madrid attacks, even though the Lisbon Treaty had not existed at that time. However, if military means were to be used, then the Council of Europe had to be unanimous and the EU Parliament had to be consulted.

The treaty also gave the Council the power to delegate to a group of nations the responsibility for carrying out a mission, and keeping the Council informed. Such reinforced cooperation could also apply to the Common Security and Defence Policy. The treaty guaranteed the independence of the European Defence Agency, and set out the conditions under which it should operate. While the treaty would promote harmonisation in this area, it did not actually set out to harmonise, and this was an important distinction. The treaty made it clear that the EU budget would support these operations only in the event of a unanimous Council decision, although the Council would be able to approve funding for preparatory work prior to certain types of mission. In this event, the Parliament would be consulted. European defence policy would be led by a high representative, who would make policy recommendations and would be in charge of implementing them. The representative would consult the European Parliament, which would have the power to question the representative, make recommendations, and hold a debate on the subject twice a year.

This overview of defence and security content within the Lisbon Treaty was intended to show that the role of national parliaments had been clarified. One article in the treaty provided for the organisation of interparliamentary conferences. Somewhat paradoxically, the treaty affirmed that the system had not changed: neither the Council nor the European Parliament would receive more responsibilities in this area. However, it was clear that the Parliament would have greater political powers and, as all members would be well aware, parliaments always tended to take advantage of such opportunities to expand their remits. This meant that the treaty was not negligible from WEU's point of view, as there was no doubt that the European Parliament would be consulted on these areas once the treaty had been adopted. Furthermore, the parliamentary committees would be consulted, kept informed, and able to produce recommendations. This might have consequences for the relationship between WEU and the parliament.

The treaty left the organisation of cooperation on these issues up to national parliaments, and it was not clear whether representatives from national parliaments would be able to go along to committee sessions and debates. It was important for WEU to make clear the nature of its mission and to strengthen its links with national parliaments, in order to show how useful it was. This was partly why the report suggested that WEU should reduce the number of categories in its membership, as the present large number of categories gave it the appearance of being disorganised.

The report suggested that the number of categories of membership should be reduced from six to three. One group would contain all EU member states; a second would include those who were members of NATO but not of the EU; and third would include all other European countries. This would have the effect of clarifying WEU's structure and giving it more influence. It was inevitable that, under the new treaty, there would be some areas of crossover between the work of WEU and that of the European Parliament, and this meant that it would have to work harder to show that it was useful and that its work informed national parliaments.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. Under rule 34.1 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose to enforce the following time limits on speeches. Those speaking on behalf of the political groups - Mr Walter, Mr Ducarme and Mr Vrettos - can speak for five minutes. All other speakers will be restricted to three minutes.

The debate is open.

I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) - Thank you, Mr President. In the eyes of ordinary people, taxpayers and electors across Europe, the EU spends far too much time contemplating its navel, constructing and reconstructing its rule book and writing and rewriting its treaties.

The draft recommendation contains some telling phrases. Recital (ii) states that the text of Reform Treaty "is even less legible for European citizens than that of the Constitutional Treaty." Recital (viii) states that the treaty will "reinforce the idea among European citizens that the European construction process is a mechanism being organised behind their backs by lawyers, diplomats and other authorities who have no real interest in participatory democracy".

On the Constitutional Treaty, I was one of the greatest supporters of referendums. I believed that we as a political class had done many things in Europe over 50 years but had failed to explain them to the people. That treaty, a consolidating document, would have given those of us who support the EU an opportunity to explain it to the people. It would have been a discipline. Those who felt that we should perhaps not be in the EU would have had an opportunity to express that view.

Recital (iii) states that "for the foreseeable future, NATO will remain responsible for the common defence". Further recitals note that no new powers will go to the Commission or to the European Parliament and that there are specific rules to reinforce that.

The CFSP will remain an intergovernmental matter. The European Parliament will never have the power to declare war. That power rests with national governments and parliaments. It is their responsibility to equip their troops, pay for their missions and determine their terms of engagement. There will be no new powers for the European Parliament, except perhaps over civil military matters that come under Community competences.

More important for us is the situation regarding this Assembly. We must acknowledge the drawbacks of the current situation. We operate under the modified Brussels Treaty, which created the Assembly and the current structure of WEU. Much of the legitimacy of the Assembly has withered away as functions have transferred to the EU. Our membership is still officially limited to 10 states, the signatories of the modified Treaty. It is right that we should extend full membership to the 27 EU member states and, perhaps, create out of the WEU Assembly a European security and defence assembly embracing the 27 member states and acknowledging the contributions of Turkey, Norway and Iceland with associate status.

We could then secure our status as a body that provides parliamentary oversight of what the EU is doing in the name of our taxpayers and electors. We could secure our relationship with the Council without a renunciation of the Brussels Treaty. We could also operate under the terms of the EU treaties. We could strengthen the legitimacy of our relationship with the Council and with the military and security committees. I believe that by changing the rules in this way, we could give new life to the Assembly.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

I call Mr Ducarme.

Mr DUCARME (Belgium) (summary) said that steps towards a true European foreign policy should be welcomed, as it would help European nations to protect their own nationals and to defend themselves. A better sense of priorities was needed.

He said that the report rightly stressed the problem of democratic deficit, and the new European Reform Treaty. He said he regretted that there had been no real debate at WEU with a French Government minister. That was particularly worrying as the French Government was about to assume the WEU Presidency. The Assembly should remind the Council of Ministers that it had a duty to address WEU. It was the only way to prevent further democratic deficit. He was concerned that the treaty contained further powers for the European Parliament. Such powers could only exacerbate its current democratic deficit. He believed that WEU should undertake negotiations to ensure that it had rules binding national parliaments to the scrutiny of WEU.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

I call Mr Vrettos.

Mr VRETTOS (Greece) (summary) said that he believed that the Assembly should welcome the Lisbon Treaty; it represented a watershed - a triumph of the effort that had been made to achieve a joint security and defence policy. He was pleased that the European Parliament would acquire more powers, but there was a democratic deficit within the treaty and the powers would not address this. The treaty represented a new dimension to scrutiny of defence policy. WEU could play a role in this by convincing governments to keep it alive. WEU had undertaken a large amount of work with little finance or resources in the last few years. He believed WEU should change its name to the Interparliamentary Assembly of the European Union. The Rapporteur had said that the French Presidency should recognise WEU's role as a decision-making centre on defence issues. The European Parliament did not want to create another parliamentary body, WEU had to convince them that it was fit for such a purpose.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. We have three speakers.

I call Mr Clappison.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - I congratulate Mr Masseret on the report, which contains many good things and some refreshing frankness about Europe. Having said that, I must say that I have the temerity not to support the report as it stands, primarily because the first recommendation welcomes the adoption of the Reform Treaty. I do not welcome the adoption of the Reform Treaty for two reasons.

First, in the United Kingdom it lacks democratic legitimacy and any institutions it gives birth to will be tainted by that lack of democratic legitimacy. Why does it lack legitimacy? It is because, as the report spells out, and it is good that it so frank about it, the Reform Treaty, in the words of the report, "is in fact substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty." As you will recall, Mr President, in its manifesto, the United Kingdom Government promised a referendum before it signed up to the Constitutional Treaty. There has been no such referendum. Therefore, there can be no legitimacy.

The second point is on the substance of the treaty. Because of the substance of the changes in the treaty, there will be a clear effect on the relationship between the EU and member states. I would like to see a European Union which is a forum for cooperation between individual member states, but that is not what we are on our way to with this treaty. It enhances, if not creates, a legal identity for the Union. How long before we have a foreign minister negotiating and a European president signing treaties and agreements on an ever-wider range of issues to bind all member states to those acts? How long before that is backed by an ever-wider common defence policy and with common defence explicitly envisaged in the treaty as being the ultimate result? It was rightly said today that the treaty is a precursor in that regard. The solidarity clauses point in the same direction.

What more could Europe do to turn itself into a state? Look at what the treaty does. It creates a de facto foreign minister, a de facto diplomatic service, qualified majority voting when the minister is implementing policy and provision for more QMV in future.

Mr President, you will remember a British television spoof programme called "Not the Nine o'clock News". What we have here is not the diplomatic service not working for the foreign minister, not operating within the framework of the constitution and not underneath the president. If we believe what we are told, the European Parliament will twice a year debate nothing.

We must come clean with the people of Europe. The report spells it out. We must be honest because, as matters stand, the lack of an effective system "will only reinforce the idea among European citizens that the European construction process is a mechanism being organised behind their backs by lawyers, diplomats and other authorities who have no real interest in participatory democracy". That is the basis that is being set out in the Reform Treaty and I think that European citizens, or the citizens of member states as I prefer to call them, deserve more honesty and candour than that. I welcome the honesty and candour in the report.

The PRESIDENT - I have not heard those arguments before.

I call Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) (summary) said that the Lisbon Reform Treaty was somewhat ambiguous. He had listened to the debate on the report carefully, and it was clear that colleagues had different views about the contents of the treaty. He said that the treaty had been drafted by diplomats and therefore it was possible to interpret it in a variety of ways. He noted that political leaders across Europe had publicly announced the contents of the treaty with varied interpretations. It was important that there was a treaty that covered security and defence issues. Europeans were sometimes detached from the reality of war. They believed that soldiers were sent to fight in far-off countries and to perform noble deeds. The Assembly was in a different position. The Assembly had to work with the French Presidency to ensure its effectiveness, but it was significant that the Prime Minister had not attended the Assembly in person.

The PRESIDENT - That concludes the list of speakers.

Does the Rapporteur wish to comment?

Mr MASSERET (France) (summary) said that he had tried to set out in the report the impact of the Reform Treaty. He acknowledged that there was a democratic deficit between the European Parliament and the national parliaments, and he suggested that WEU could act as a bridge to connect these institutions and to reduce that deficit. He concluded that there was nothing revolutionary about his report but it contained a few new ideas which could be useful to the Assembly.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

I call the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA (Spain) (summary) said that he hoped that a technical correction by oral amendment could be made to paragraph (iii) (b) so as to include the names of countries who were associate members.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

I am flying by the seat of my pants today. I understand that those three countries are included in the document, so I do not see any difficulty in adopting such an amendment unless someone in the Assembly has an objection. I see no objection, so we can add Iceland, Norway and Turkey, as the Chairman of the Committee has requested.

The debate is closed.

The Political Committee has presented a draft recommendation to which four amendments have been tabled. They will be considered in numerical order.

We now come to Amendment 1, which reads as follows:

1. Delete recital (i) of the preamble to the draft recommendation.

I call Mr Clappison to move the amendment.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - I think I have already made my case.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

Does anyone oppose the amendment? ...

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the Committee?

Mr MASSERET (France) (summary) said that he would prefer Amendment 1 to be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

I call the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA (Spain) (summary) said that the amendments had not been submitted to the Political Committee so they had not been debated or voted on. He supported the recommendation as it stood, without the amendment.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. What the Rapporteur and the Chairman of the Committee have said is clear.

Does the mover wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - I am afraid that I want to press the amendment to the vote.

The PRESIDENT - We will now vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 2, which reads as follows:

2. In the preamble to the draft recommendation, at the end of recital (ii) add "with the result that the institutions of the Union will become even more remote from the citizens of member states;".

I call Mr Clappison to move the amendment.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - This is a different point. I welcome recital (ii) and I think that the amendment would add something to it. The treaty is obscure. Quite why it should be so obscure in its wording is an interesting question. It is even more obscure than the original Constitutional Treaty. Perhaps the text of the Reform Treaty is even less comprehensible than that of the Constitutional Treaty because we are not meant to see that this is the Constitutional Treaty.

The EU admitted that it was remote when it launched its reform process under the slogan "Bringing Europe Closer to the People". It is indeed to be regretted that the Union should seek to accomplish that aim through a treaty that no one can understand.

As I have already said, the report refers to people feeling that Europe is remote and being organised behind their backs. That description could hardly be bettered. It is precisely what many of my constituents think. Highlighting this particular proposal will strike a blow for honesty and candour.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

Does anyone oppose the amendment? ...

I call Mr Henderson.

Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) - The amendment is founded on myopic isolationism and jingoism from the British Conservative Party, which is deliberately trying to isolate European institutions from European people. I urge the Assembly to reject the amendment.

The PRESIDENT - That is quite a clear position.

What is the opinion of the Rapporteur?

Mr MASSERET (France) (summary) said that he was against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

What is the opinion of the Committee?

Mr AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA (Spain) (summary) said that he was against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

I will now put the amendment to the vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 3, which reads as follows:

3. In the preamble to the draft recommendation delete recital (iv) and replace by:

I call on Mr Clappison to move the amendment.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - The report quotes at length declarations 31 and 32 of the treaty, saying what the treaty does not do. In my view, there is an iron law that two consequences inevitably follow when the provisions in a European treaty say what the treaty is not doing. First, it must inexorably follow that the treaty is doing something else that is very important. Secondly, the things that are not happening now will undoubtedly happen in future, and the way is being laid for that to happen. This always happens, and I see no reason why this should be an exception. We should be honest about this. This treaty lays the foundations for a common European policy under European institutions and, as the Union seeks to do more, as it inevitably will, it will impinge on the foreign policies of individual states. After all, why are we establishing a new minister? It is a new Foreign Minister - whatever label we may put on the post, it is the function that is important. We are also establishing quite a big diplomatic service, by the look of it. What are all these diplomats going to do in the external action service? This is about foreign policy, so let us come clean and say that we are laying the foundations for a common foreign policy.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. Does anyone oppose the amendment?

I call Mr Henderson.

Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) - I should like to restate the sentiment that I expressed in the previous amendment. The British red lines have been agreed in the draft treaty that will go to the various countries in the coming months. There is still an intergovernmental arrangement on foreign policy, although I have to say that it makes sense to have a common foreign policy on many occasions when we are dealing with the Middle East, the Balkans, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I urge the Assembly to reject the amendment.

The PRESIDENT - Does the Rapporteur, or the Chairman of the Committee, wish to comment?

That is not the case.

The PRESIDENT - I will now put the amendment to the vote by show of hands.

Mr EVANS (United Kingdom) - Mr President, some people are just holding up bits of paper. Could you please count only the people who are holding up voting cards?

The PRESIDENT - I shall put the amendment to the vote again in case one or two members were just holding up bits of paper. I do not want there to be a dispute about this, or an international incident. I am going to ask all members to show the proper cards.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

Amendment 3 is rejected.

The PRESIDENT - We now come to Amendment 4, which reads as follows:

4. In the preamble to the draft recommendation, at the end of recital (viii) add "and that it would be better if those responsible for the treaty came clean with the citizens of member states and admitted that the Reform Treaty is substantially the same as the previously proposed Constitution;".

I call Mr Clappison to move the amendment.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - The amendment uses the wording of paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum, which states: "But others have criticised the fact that the Reform Treaty is in fact substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty". This is a welcome and important statement which reflects the view that is widely held in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. It deserves to be in the recommendation as well as in the explanatory memorandum. I want to launch a pre-emptive strike against the opposition that I imagine will be on its way. I draw great encouragement from the opposition that I have heard so far. Never mind our government's red lines; as far as this is concerned, most of the red lines are irrelevant to the Constitutional Treaty. However, if the United Kingdom Government is so proud of its red lines and so convinced of its case, I draw encouragement from that, because it must mean that there is a greater willingness in some quarters for the Reform Treaty to be put to a referendum, as was originally promised.

The PRESIDENT - There is still a good old British debate taking place. Does anyone oppose the amendment?

I call Mr Henderson, the champion of the red lines.

Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) - I restate the principles that I have already tried to enunciate to the Assembly. The treaty is not the same as a constitution, and that has been said quite clearly by the presidents and prime ministers of a number of European Union countries. Were it the same, there would be severe problems for a number of countries, not only the United Kingdom. It is not the same and we should reject the amendment.

The PRESIDENT - Does the Rapporteur, or the Chairman, wish to comment?

That is not the case.

I will now put the amendment to the vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 1979.

Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.

Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) - Yes, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT - As five members so desire, we shall proceed to a vote by roll-call.

(A vote was taken by roll-call)

The result of the vote was as follows: in favour, 23, against, 5. There were no abstentions.

The draft recommendation is adopted

We shall now vote on the draft order contained in Document 1979.

Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, if 10 or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on the draft recommendation.

Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...

That is not the case. We shall vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

The draft recommendation is adopted.

(Mr Pavlidis, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair)

9. Draft budget of the Assembly for 2008

The PRESIDENT - We now come to the debate on the draft Budget for the Assembly for 2008, presented on behalf of the Budgetary Affairs and Administration Committee, by Mrs Barnett, Document 1987, upon which we will vote.

I call Mrs Barnett to present the draft budget.

Mrs BARNETT (Germany) (summary) said that, following all the efforts of WEU in recent years, the draft budget she had to present was not a particularly inspiring one. It was unlikely that there would be any objection from the Council to it. She wanted to congratulate the financial team on its careful management. Some members might think that the Assembly should simply congratulate itself for its good work, approve the budget and move on to apparently more substantial items of business. However, she was not totally satisfied with the budget. Twice a year, WEU held debating sessions at which members and distinguished guest speakers could debate highly topical issues of great importance. This was possible at present because funds were provided, but what would happen if those funds were ended or reduced? The previous year, WEU had been asked to find savings of €65 000, and this year it was being asked to cut its spending by a further €25 000.

Turning to the individual budget headings, she said that there was no change to the level of staffing, with 38 people on the permanent payroll. Due to one member of staff leaving, responsibilities had been reorganised, which had led to a change in salary levels. It was unlikely that anyone would leave in the coming year although, of course, one could never be sure. She hoped that the Council would recognise the fairness of WEU's request to keep €180 000 aside in a separate budget to cover pensions and leaving allowances. This was important to ensure clarity. In 2008, she hoped that this fund would be increased in order to maintain flexibility. Of course, no cost would be incurred under this heading by the Council as long as no members of staff left.

The Council had made it clear that WEU should not expect a growth in its budget over and above the French rate of inflation, which was at 1.2 %. Of course, WEU had no control over the costs associated with permanent staff or pension funds. However, when one looked at the amounts specified under the other headings, it was impossible not to wonder how much importance the Council accorded to WEU. The main working part of the budget had been increased by just 0.3%, and this continued a trend in recent years, which had led to a reduction in WEU's purchasing power of 11% in real terms. On the element of the budget which covered fact-finding missions, an increase of only 0.027% had been granted. There was certainly no sign of the 1.2% increase under either of these headings.

Furthermore, expenditure on representation and travel costs for staff had been greatly reduced over recent years, and yet the Council was still asking WEU to find €25 000 of savings. She simply could not understand this decision. It was hardly the case that WEU operated in an atmosphere of luxury. To take just one example, the chairs in meeting rooms were in need of replacement. It would also be highly desirable for the building to be renovated in order to save on heating and air conditioning costs. However, despite tight budgets, there had been improvements to the technical facilities in recent years, such as to the telephone system. She would like to see more flexibility from the Council. A lot of money could also be saved in interest if members paid their dues on time.

She stressed that WEU had a very important function to fulfil, that of forming a link between national parliaments and the European Parliament in the area of defence and security. She acknowledged that she might have made this point in the past, but felt that it was still highly relevant.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. The debate is open.

I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) - As Vice-Chairman of the Committee, I put on record my appreciation, and the appreciation of all other Committee members, for the fine work that our Chairman has put in over the past year. She used the expression "in the context of the WEU Council." For the moment at least, we still have funds in our operating budget. We have just approved, without anyone voting against, the draft recommendation relating to changes in the way in which we organise our affairs. I take this opportunity to propose an idea.

We are going to be totally dependent on the so-called ministerial organs for our resources in future and the European Union is intent on setting up a rival scrutiny body in the form of the European Parliament, which will meet twice a year and has virtually unlimited resources. I can envisage a situation arising that is not dissimilar to that in the Council of Europe where the Council of Ministers starves the Council of Europe of funds and the funds go straight to the European Union. The European Union is then able to spend money and to try to achieve its objective of marginalising, if not eliminating, the Council of Europe.

There is a prospect that that is exactly what will happen with the advent of the Lisbon Treaty, if it is ratified throughout the EU. I can envisage a situation where the ministerial organs will say that there is no need to have a parliamentary assembly in WEU because we already have the European Parliament.

We do not need to emphasise in this Chamber the difference between a European Parliament that is directly elected and comprises people who are increasingly out of touch with their home parliaments, and this organisation, which comprises people who are members of their own home parliaments and have to take account of representations made directly by their own constituents in relation to European security and defence. Particularly in the United Kingdom at the moment, all members of parliament are aware of the strong feelings among the public about what is going on in Afghanistan. One way in which those concerns can be articulated at multinational level is by parliamentarians gathering in this forum, receiving representations, being able to question ministers to find out what the strategies are and, as the Chairman said, go on visits.

What are we going to do? How will we secure our funds? I would like to suggest that we investigate the idea of being directly funded by parliaments, rather than by governments. In that way, the parliaments would be able to control expenditure and governments would not be able to interfere with our right as parliamentarians to scrutinise what is going on as regards European security and defence.

We have a bit of time because even the most optimistic supporter of the Lisbon Treaty does not expect ratification in the immediate future by all countries that need to ratify it. However, once that is ratified and in place and the terms are interpreted in the way that I fear they will be, as my friend James Clappison said earlier, the squeeze will be on this organisation. In anticipation of that, we should be going out there discussing with parliamentary members whether they see a role for this organisation being directly funded by individual parliaments rather than governments or, as the report says, ministerial organs.

I put that thought forward because, unless we get the funds, we will not be able to be independent and to exercise the scrutiny role that is fundamental. It is the reason we are here today.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you. No other person wants to speak.

Does Mrs Barnett, Chairman and Rapporteur, wish to reply?

Mrs BARNETT (Germany) (summary) said that WEU had to be the interface between international parliaments. In order to be recognised as a European parliamentary body, WEU needed sufficient resources. National parliaments had to approve large sums of money for United Nations operations and yet WEU had to fight tooth and nail to get extra resources to improve its scrutiny. She asked the Assembly to approve her draft budget.

She thanked her colleague for his remarks. It was the responsibility of all parliamentarians to establish a link between WEU and the European Parliament. It was an issue that should be settled by WEU members, not by national governments.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you.

The debate is closed.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft budget of the Assembly for 2008, Document 1987.

Under Rule 35.2 of the rules of procedure, if ten or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call.

Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...

That is not the case.

We will vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

The draft budget is adopted.

10. Opinion on the budgets of the WEU ministerial organs for 2007

The PRESIDENT - The next order of the day is the presentation of and debate on the report of the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration, "Opinion on the budgets of the ministerial organs of WEU for 2007", and vote on the draft recommendation, Document 1988.

I call Mr Greenway to present the report.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) - With permission, I will speak also on the report on the expenditure of the Assembly for 2006. It requires very little comment. I hope that that is convenient for colleagues.

This morning, we re-elected our President, elected our Vice-Presidents and renewed the appointment of our Secretary-General, Colin Cameron, for a further five years. That represents a huge vote of confidence in the Secretary-General, but also in the Secretariat and staff of our Assembly, without whom we would achieve very little, if anything at all. They cannot be expected to contribute all that they do without adequate resources.

While it may be tempting for colleagues to think that dealing with the issues that affect our budget and accounts is dull, unexciting and of little interest, as Rapporteur on two of the three matters before us today, I shall try to convince the Assembly that the opposite is the case and that we must pay proper regard to the state of our finances and gain a better appreciation of the difficult challenges that we face - some of them were eloquently outlined by our Committee Chairman, Mrs Barnett - if we want our Assembly to flourish and be effective.

I join Mrs Barnett in paying tribute to the work of our treasurer, Gilles Combarieu, and his staff. They meet the challenge of year-on-year, real-terms reductions in our budget with commendable resilience, and always with exceeding good humour.

As Mrs Barnett made clear, WEU Council has insisted on a further €25 000 reduction in the operating budget originally agreed by your Committee, thus ensuring that the year ahead will be very challenging in financial terms for the Assembly, and in particular for operations. That is the background against which the Assembly should judge the budget of the rest of WEU - the ministerial organs - and the accounts of the Assembly for 2006.

My report, "Opinion on the budgets of the ministerial organs of WEU for 2007", is concerned with the budgets of three elements: the WEU Secretariat General, based in Brussels; the Paris Administrative Service, which supports our Assembly here; and the pensions of the WEU Secretariat General and the former Paris ministerial organs, which are both expensive and unavoidable commitments.

Our assessment of those matters must take account of the significant restructuring of WEU over the past five years. The Institute for Security Studies and the Satellite Centre - former WEU activities - now belong to the EU. The Paris Administrative Service is now fully operational. In 2005, the Western European Armaments Group ceased its activities and the Western European Armaments Organisation research cell closed in August 2006.

That is all significant because, as a result of all those changes, the role of the Secretariat General in Brussels is much reduced. Its residual role is to support the WEU Council, to answer all the questions and queries that come from this Assembly, and to maintain the WEU archives, which is not an unformidable job. The task is one of the few remaining with the Secretariat General in Brussels.

That reduced activity is reflected in a reduction in operating costs of some 28.21% in 2007 as compared to 2006. My report also confirms that the budget of the WEU Secretariat General has increased by just 1.6%, which is well below the salary increase agreed for the Co-ordinated Organisations.

I have no hesitation in confirming to the Assembly the fact that the WEU Secretariat General is very soundly managed. We should mark that. The same is true of the Paris Administrative Service, and the budget for 2008, which we have just agreed, makes it clear that that trend will continue.

My two reports also stress the importance of ensuring that the budget for the ministerial organs for 2008 takes account of inflation and real increases in pensions and remuneration. However, looking to the future and taking into account the fact that so few responsibilities remain for WEU's Brussels-based Secretariat General, I recommend to the Assembly the fact that the time has come to undertake a thorough review of the remaining WEU functions and to rationalise WEU's administration overall.

Paragraphs 16 to 23 of my explanatory memorandum set out a case for the possible closure of the Brussels operation and the transfer of the Secretariat General function to Paris. I accept that that is a controversial proposal. It may be tempting to think that, as WEU's future is uncertain, we should leave things as they are, retaining the status quo. It is also true that such a step would generate some additional cost - possible redundancy costs and costs for staff transfer. Those costs might, initially at least, outweigh or at least counter the savings achieved by the closure of the Brussels operation.

Those are all valid arguments. However, even if the EU Reform Treaty is ratified, it is clear from our debate this afternoon that, whatever view colleagues take on the future of that treaty, there is agreement that this Assembly has a significant future role to play in scrutinising ESDP activity. That is likely to continue for some time. The President's report earlier today made it clear, as did the re-election of our Secretary-General for a further five years, that we are going to be here and in business for some considerable time. We must make some decisions that will take account of that.

We also know that the budgets of the Secretariat General service in Brussels and the Paris Administrative Service are under huge pressure. That is what we have been debating. In truth, we have to concede that that must be right, when our armed forces are under such pressure and there are real-terms cuts in defence budgets right across Europe. As we shall discuss again tomorrow, there are also serious challenges in resourcing and equipping planned ESDP operations.

For all those reasons, I believe that we have a duty to look for long-term cost savings within WEU as a whole. It is my view that we could achieve a significant reduction in costs in the long term, some of which we could redeploy into ensuring the continuing effectiveness of our Assembly here, if the Brussels operation were to be transferred to Paris. Colleagues, I commend my analysis in paragraphs 16 to 23 of my report to you for further study.

One critically important feature of my argument is the fact that WEU owns the wing of this building in which our three committee rooms, our secretariat and our delegation offices are based. The third floor is occupied by the Institute for Security Studies, now an EU body. It has been suggested that the institute might want to expand as it needs more space, and that it might move, perhaps to the European Union headquarters in Brussels. That might make sense. All we ask is that the WEU Council look at all of this with an open mind and undertake a review. Otherwise, what seems to be a golden opportunity to rationalise all these arrangements to ensure the greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of our Assembly and of WEU as a whole might be lost.

In the meantime, it is important to maintain our part of the building properly. This leads me to two other important points that I have set out in my report to the Assembly. In the Assembly accounts, the Auditor expresses the view that the use of WEU budget surpluses - and surpluses that arise from the operational cost reductions that I have mentioned - to pay for refurbishment is not supported in the regulations governing the expenditure of the Paris Administrative Service. However, I suggest that this is a misunderstanding on the part of the Auditor. The surpluses belong to WEU as a whole, and the expenditure on refurbishment is entirely in keeping with the agreement between WEU Council, the Paris Administrative Service and the Assembly. So there is no need to be alarmed about the caveat in the audit certificate.

I hope that colleagues will welcome the fact that renovation and refurbishment is already under way in our building next door, which should be obvious to anyone who opens his eyes, considering the conditions in which we were working six months ago. However, I must draw the Assembly's attention to the fact that we need to do more still. We have a responsibility to ensure that the staff who serve us so well work in a satisfactory environment. We also have a duty to ensure that we comply with French law and practice. In that regard, I am informed that the cleaning of the exterior of our building is long overdue. We also need to make important changes to the entrance of our building off the courtyard at the western end, towards Trocadero, to improve security - that is absolutely vital - and to meet the requirement to provide disabled access, as there is none at present. In my report on the ministerial organs, I recommended that those works should be undertaken without delay.

I should like to draw the Assembly's attention to one further item, namely the unsatisfactory situation concerning unreconciled WEU budgets from previous years. The details of these are set out on pages 13 and 14 of the report on the ministerial organs. Credits or overpayments from previous years need to be written off or adjusted for the sake of improved clarity and account keeping, and to make our treasurer's job a little easier.

Mrs Barnett referred in her presentation to the fact that member states' contributions had been in arrears on a number of occasions. This causes the Assembly to have to borrow money on overdraft from the bank. That incurs interest which is not allowed for in our already tight budgets. Members of the Assembly are urged to ensure that the contributions from their countries are paid on time. There has been an improvement in the past few months, but only because some of us made a fuss with our own governments. I am grateful to colleagues for doing that.

I believe that we have an Assembly of which we can be proud. Our debates today have been feisty at times, but topical. We have an important future. We must ensure that, in order to achieve all to which we aspire, we are adequately resourced, that our staff receive salary increases that are commensurate with inflation and agreed protocols, and that the entire WEU operation is run to maximum economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The recommendations in my reports seek to achieve those objectives, and I urge all of you to support them and to take a continuing interest in the resources of our Assembly in the year ahead.

The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Greenway.

Does Mrs Barnett, Chairman of the Committee, wish to speak?

That is not the case.

The debate is closed.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 1988.

Under Rule 35.2 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.

Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...

That is not the case.

We will have a vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

The draft recommendation is adopted.

11. Accounts of the expenditure of the Assembly for 2006

The PRESIDENT - As Mr Greenway has presented the reports together, we shall now vote on the motion to approve the final accounts of the Assembly for 2006 contained in the addendum to Document 1977. No amendments have been tabled.

Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, if 10 or more representatives or substitutes present in the chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on the accounts. Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...

That is not the case.

We will have a vote by show of hands.

(A vote was taken by show of hands)

The motion to approve the final accounts of the Assembly for 2006 is adopted unanimously.

The accounts are therefore approved unanimously.

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

The PRESIDENT - That concludes our business for this afternoon.

I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 with the following orders of the day.

Are there any objections? ...

The orders of the day for the next sitting are approved.

Does anyone wish to speak? ...

That is not the case.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 18.50)