AA13CR06

AS (2013) CR 06

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Sixth sitting

Wednesday 29 January 2014 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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

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

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

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Membership of committees

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is further changes to committee membership, as set out in Commissions (2014) 01 Addendum 6.

      Are these proposals approved?

      The proposed candidatures are approved.

2. Syrian refugees: how to organise and support international assistance?

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Syrian refugees: how to organise and support international assistance?” (Document 13372) presented by Mr Jean-Marie Bockel on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, with an opinion presented by Mr Şaban Dişli on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy (Document 13403). Having heard from our two rapporteurs, we will have the pleasure of listening to Mr Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

      We need to have concluded our consideration of the report, including votes, by 6 p.m. Should it be necessary, the list of speakers will be interrupted at about 5.40 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the vote. Mr Bockel, you have 13 minutes in which to present your report; you will need to keep a little time in reserve for your reply to the debate. Following your and Mr Dişli’s presentation, the Commissioner for Human Rights will take the floor to share his views. Commissioner Muižnieks, it is a great pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon. We are delighted that you will be contributing to this difficult debate. You report back to the Assembly on the activities of your office in April each year. Today we are dealing with a burning issue – indeed, it is more than merely that. Unfortunately, it has been hitting the headlines for too long already. We are discussing the dramatic situation of Syrian refugees. Last month, Commissioner, you visited a number of Syrian refugee camps in Turkey, Bulgaria and Germany; what you have to say will certainly contribute greatly to our debate. You will have an opportunity to share your views and opinions with us, following the presentations from Mr Bockel and Mr Dişli.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – I welcome Mr Mariani, the new chair of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

      Our committee wanted to inform colleagues of the present situation, and this Council of Europe debate gives us an opportunity to urge the international community to act more swiftly. We also have Mr Dişli from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy with us. We have worked together hand in hand. We have conducted joint hearings. I thank him for that. I also welcome the Commissioner for Human Rights. We are very happy to have you with us and your mission report was very interesting, and I would say we broadly share your conclusions.

      We are very concerned by what we have seen of the situation on the ground. That is why it is essential to continue to inform the Assembly of what is going on, and to inform the public, as people need to know what is happening right now in Syria. Unfortunately things will not be resolved overnight. We will have to pursue our efforts and continue to conduct inquiries into this dramatic situation, looking in particular at the plight of the most vulnerable: women and children, particularly unaccompanied children. We also need to look at how the camps are managed and administered, and how international aid is being used in practice. All of that needs to be monitored.

      Our Assembly also must ensure that Syrian refugees do not feel completely abandoned. I remember what they said during the visit, and we must help these people. I therefore would like the Assembly to give us a brief to continue with our work, by going to Jordan, for instance, where the situation is terrible, particularly in Zaatari, and to other neighbouring countries.

      Our report is based on two visits. I want to thank once again the High Commissioner for Refugees in particular: thank you for helping organise these visits and for being so brave and for applying yourself to this issue.

      The places in Lebanon we visited were not camps at that time. The idea was not to create camps. This was some months ago and we already had 900 000 people there and now the authorities are trying to change the situation because things have changed and we must face reality. The situation is not really recognised and there is no organisation as such. It is tolerated, but it has become intolerable, too, as the living conditions are simply undignified and inhumane, with unsafe drinking water, lack of sanitation, and non-existent aid. Non-governmental organisations and the High Commissioner for Refugees have a role to play in this connection. There is also the issue of out-of-school children, administrative obstacles in renewing visas, and lack of access to basic necessities such as nappies for babies and blankets. The situation is very dangerous. It is already unstable and it is becoming a powder keg. We need to concentrate on women and children, who constitute the majority of the refugees.

      We also visited Turkey, where the situation is markedly different. The Turkish authorities really want to help the Syrian refugees to whatever extent they can. The vice-governor of the Hatay region, for instance, informed us that many refugees were being housed with families in their homes. That is starting to cause a problem, however, because there are ever more refugees there. The Red Crescent helps refugees who are in the border regions.

      The camp we visited near Hatay was one of the first to be set up. Until June 2013, the situation was relatively calm, but in a few months the number of refugees had increased from 250 to 6 500 and things had be to be reorganised, with more tents being erected and impromptu schools being established, which goes to show that the Turkish State has been very involved. Importantly, children can go to school in the mornings there. That is a remarkable difference from the previous case I mentioned.

      The international community has not helped enough. The refugees feel that a lot of promises have been made but nobody is living up to them. We need to remember that the situation in the neighbouring countries is precarious, particularly in Lebanon. We must thank the countries who are welcoming refugees, including in Europe. Thank you for your generosity, despite the austerity measures in place now. There is also the north Africa situation and the situation in Egypt. Egypt has welcomed a great number of Syrian refugees who otherwise would have had to go to third countries. Children have unfortunately been placed in administrative detention, however.

      I will not repeat all our recommendations. We will have an opportunity to discuss them later. We make recommendations to member States of our Organisation and to non-member States. We must all pull together and grant temporary protection for the refugees and apply the principle of non-refoulement, to ensure access to territory and asylum procedures. We also need to deal with a mass influx of new refugees and ensure that children can benefit from an education. We must provide all possible protection to women and girls. There must be generosity and solidarity by the international community, including the European community. We all need to do more. We need to make sure refugees get the basic needs.

      We also encourage member States of the European Union to implement the directive concerning temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons, and we must support European Union countries hosting Syrian refugees.

      Turning finally to Geneva 2, we naturally welcome the fact that representatives of the regime and the Syrian National Coalition have agreed to sit around the negotiating table. It is clear that so far no solution has been found concerning the humanitarian corridor that needs to be created. Women and children need to be able to leave the old city of Homs, which has been besieged since 2012. The principle of such an evacuation has been accepted, but certain measures need to be taken by both sides before we can move forward. At present we are a bit stuck, therefore. The humanitarian aspect is not yet settled and that is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that vulnerable civilians are taken hostage for political reasons, yet they have no responsibility for the conflict. That is not fair. I am sure all members of the Assembly would like to emphasise that. We have a geopolitical position that is very important and we need to pull together to find solutions.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Dişli, Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, for his opinion.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey.) – First, may I congratulate you, Madam President, on your election?

      I thank my fellow rapporteur for this excellent work, and for our very good co-operation. Mr Bockel provided detailed information on the situation of Syrian refugees in the neighbouring countries to Syria. I also thank previous rapporteurs and this Assembly for the action taken since the beginning of the crisis and for keeping this issue on our agenda.

      The situation of refugees and displaced persons has continued to deteriorate. In December 2013, Amnesty International issued a document titled “An international failure: the Syrian refugee crisis” in which it stated that the international community has failed miserably to support refugees from Syria and the main countries receiving them.

      In addition to the starvation and the death toll, the number of refugees, who are mainly women and children, is also increasing. Concerns about women and children suffering from sexual and gender-based violence in some of the camps should specifically be tackled. I thank our colleague Mr Schennach from Austria for bringing that terrible tragedy to our attention in previous sessions.

      Due to the long-running conflict, various branches of al-Qaeda groups have become active in some parts of Syria, causing great concern to neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, out of desperation, Syrians are sympathising with those warlords. Another concern for neighbouring countries is the increasing number of smugglers and human traffickers.

      Unfortunately, the same co-operation and understanding of the international community on the use of chemical weapons has not been seen in the effort to secure a ceasefire. I sincerely hope that the Geneva II conference will be successful in finding a durable solution to the tragedy.

      I conclude by joining the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons to call on Council of Europe member States to show further solidarity and to share responsibility by taking necessary measures to cater for Syrian refugees as much and as effectively as possible.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, to present his statement.

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS (Council of Europe Commissioner of Human Rights) – I warmly welcome this debate. Most parts of Europe have been sleeping through the Syrian refugee crisis, despite the fact that it is one of the world’s biggest refugee crises of recent times and that it is unfolding on Europe’s doorstep. I see this discussion as an indication that not all are sleeping.

      In 2013, I began to encounter Syrian refugees in many of my country visits – in police stations in Greece; in a Danish refugee reception centre; in a forest surrounding a refugee centre in Serbia; and in Armenia, where I did not expect to meet them either. It became clear that I had to gain more extensive first-hand knowledge of the situation of those forced to flee Syria who are in Europe.

      Therefore, in mid-December, I decided to follow one of the routes that Syrian refugees are often forced to take. First I travelled to Hatay in Turkey, where I visited two temporary accommodation centres, one of which was only 3 kilometres from the Syrian border. I continued to Sofia in Bulgaria, where I visited an open refugee accommodation centre at Voenna Rampa and a closed centre for foreigners in Busmantsi. I finished in Friedland in Germany, where I visited an accommodation and orientation centre for refugees.

      The report and resolution that you are discussing correctly describe the magnitude of the human tragedy. It should be stressed that the main victims are children, who account for more than half of all Syrian refugees.

      Despite the size and proximity of this tragedy, Europe’s response has so far been limited primarily to providing humanitarian assistance to some of the countries neighbouring Syria. That is good and needed, but Europe cannot just buy its way out of its responsibilities. When it comes to receiving refugees, Europe has been much less generous. Turkey is the only country in the Council of Europe to have opened its arms fully to Syrians. It has taken an estimated 1 million Syrian refugees, which is over 10 times the number of all the other Council of Europe member States combined. Turkey should be commended for that. Some other countries – mainly Germany, Sweden and Armenia – have also taken good steps to receive Syrian refugees through humanitarian admission and facilitated family reunification. However, only a few thousand places are available under such programmes, so often Syrians have attempted to reach a safe haven in Europe on their own.

      We continue to see measures that make that difficult or sometimes impossible, such as tightening visa requirements and strict conditions for family reunification. Worse, we receive regular reports that Syrians seeking refuge have been pushed back from the borders of certain European countries. In some cases, they have been seriously ill-treated during such operations.

      Unfortunately, I have also seen how Syrians, when they somehow manage to reach the territory of some member States to seek asylum, are often subjected to detention or inadequate – even degrading – living conditions.

      We should not delude ourselves at all. The challenges flowing from the Syrian refugee crisis, including the human rights challenges, are here to stay for the foreseeable future, not only as a result of the continuing conflict itself, but from the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey who are living outside the camps, who might be staying with relatives or friends or living off their savings. Their savings are running out. They will be in increasing poverty and may be forced to find alternative solutions.

      My task, as I see it, is to assist European governments to rise to the challenge and to help them abide by their human rights and refugee law obligations. I urge member States to respond generously to appeals made by the United Nations Refugee Agency, not only for funding, but for the resettlement of refugees.

      I also urge member States to keep their borders open to allow Syrian refugees to enter their territories to seek and enjoy asylum, including by granting them humanitarian visas. I urge for an immediate cessation of any expulsions of Syrians at member States’ borders and other practices contrary to the principle of non-refoulement.

      I urge the adoption of formal moratoria on returns of Syrians to Syria, and I urge member States to refrain from sending Syrian refugees to countries neighbouring Syria, including Turkey, to avoid adding to the challenges that such countries already face.

      I also urge countries to refrain from using the Dublin regulation to return Syrian refugees to countries whose asylum systems are already overstretched, particularly Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Malta.

      I urge countries also to ensure that Syrians seeking refuge are granted international protection, to which they are entitled, and are granted adequate opportunities for integration in their host communities.

      Efforts to organise and support international assistance to those affected by the conflict in Syria should be built around human rights considerations. That means that the protection of rights – not the prevention of arrivals – should lie at the heart of such efforts. The Syrian refugee crisis once again exposes painfully the urgent need for European States and the European Union to move away from a security-based approach to migration and humanitarian crises to a human rights-based approach.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Muižnieks, for your valuable contribution. We must continue to work together.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      In the debate I call first Ms Virolainen, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I congratulate Mr Bockel on his excellent and relevant report, which reminds us of the urgency to find a solution to the Syrian conflict.

      The civil war in Syria has been going on for far too long. The international community is lost in the face of the continued violence and the distress of the Syrian people.        At the same time as we are calling for an immediate end to the violence, some countries are still providing the Syrians with weapons.

      I hope that the on-going diplomatic negotiations on Syria will result in a stable solution, allowing all Syrians to return to their homes. However, our responsibility will not end there. Syria will need our help in rebuilding its infrastructure, building democracy and providing its people with food, water and medical care.

      The conflict is no longer only a Syrian problem. The aggravated situation is causing distress and instability in the whole region. Nearly 2,5 million refugees are spread out in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. I congratulate those countries on their efforts, but I am worried about the awful conditions in many refugee camps. Evidence shows that some men use such camps to buy girls as sexual merchandise. Also, the spread of diseases previously thought to have been eliminated, such as polio, could lead to epidemics.

      The Syrian refugees have not led a normal life for a very long time. More than half of them are women and children with their own needs and dreams. Our inability to ensure functioning schools and the availability of food is depriving Syrian children of a future, and our failure to tackle rape and sexual abuse in the refugee camps is depriving Syrian women of their self-esteem. The situation is contributing towards the weakening of the building blocks needed for constructing a new and improved Syria, and it is creating a generation without direction or hope.

      The European Union is currently working on a joint approach to managing the flow of migrants and refugees. I welcome the initiative and encourage European Union leaders to be brave and pragmatic. The situation of Syrian refugees has become so grave that we simply cannot shut our doors any more. I encourage everyone to give them a chance to exist in a secure environment until they can return safely to their homes. If we cannot help solve the conflict, let us at least help the people who are suffering as a result of it.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Virolainen. I call Mr Morozov, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr MOROZOV (Russian Federation)* – The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population discussed this report in November. It was decided that the issue needed much greater international attention and that we would report on the situation of Syrian refugees to colleagues around the world. Russian parliamentarians have taken part in meetings of the Asian Parliamentary Assembly and the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean last week, during which we came to a common understanding.

      Colleagues from the Mediterranean and Austria have produced reports with similar conclusions to those in Jean-Marie Bockel’s report. Events in the refugee camps and among internally displaced persons in Syria are so devastating from the point of view of public morality and human rights that, irrespective of which continent we live on or which part of Europe we live in, we should all come to the same conclusion. We agree with the assessment that the situation of Syrian refugees and displaced persons is the humanitarian disaster of the 21st century. There is only one way out of it: a complete end to the bloodshed and the commencement of a political process.

      Targeted support for just one side has no chance of resolving the problem, as events over the past three years have shown. The Geneva conference needs to represent a turning point. Plenty of people are sceptical of the negotiations, but the diplomatic process has started and it may bear fruit. It will take a long time, but the refugees and the peaceful population need assistance now, so we face the acute problem of alleviating the country’s humanitarian situation.

As paragraph 11 of the draft resolution notes, it is extremely important for the Assembly to ask all the parties to comply with the norms of humanitarian law and open up access to the staff of humanitarian organisations so that they can reach women, children and vulnerable groups. That requires co-operation between the government and the armed opposition, who must be compelled to guarantee the safety of humanitarian convoys. There are volunteers from the Red Crescent and the United Nations, so people should not be dying.

      There is only one way forward: the peace process in Geneva and a refusal to fuel the conflict on both sides. There needs to be a proper development process. That is the only way we will help the refugees and internally displaced persons in Syria.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Morozov. I call Ms Lundgren, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports. There is no question but that the ongoing civil war in Syria horrifies us all. A human disaster – a human tragedy – is taking place before our eyes. I have looked at the figures of the UN Refugee Agency. There are 2 386 087 registered Syrian refugees – more than the number of citizens in 14 of our member States. If we took into account the number of internally displaced persons and non-registered refugees, we would have to double or triple that figure.

      The situation is costly for everyone concerned, not only in Syria, but in the neighbouring countries. Lebanon has a population of about 4 million and it has about 844 025 registered refugees and even more unregistered refugees. Jordan has a population of about 6 million and it has 593 186 registered refugees and a lot of unregistered refugees. Turkey has a population of 73.6 million people and it has 580 542 registered refugees and up to 1 million refugees in total. In Iraq, Egypt and European Union countries there are 55 000 registered refugees.

      We all have hopes for Geneva 2 and we all support Brahimi in his efforts to stop the war. We all know that that will not happen tomorrow and that it will take time to mend what has broken. The pressures on the neighbouring countries are enormous and growing every day in an unstable region. This is not about money; if a country’s population increases by 15% in a couple of years, it is about the people, the country and the region as a whole.

      Paragraph 14 of the draft resolution asks the neighbouring countries to not close their borders. If we are asking them to do that, we must do the same. The UN Refugee Agency proposes that countries admit and resettle 30 000 refugees until the end of 2014, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable. We must all do more on top of what we are already doing. We must do it in solidarity and realise that we have to share the burdens for the sake not only of the people, but of the values we all stand for.

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

      Mr GÜR (Turkey) – I congratulate you on behalf of my group and party, Madam President. I believe that women are better at governing the world and I wish you every success.

      In discussing refugees and the humanitarian crisis in Syria, we should not forget to keep an eye on the problems facing internally displaced persons. It is true that neighbouring countries have received millions of refuges, but there are still many millions in Syria who are vulnerable and waiting for international assistance. For example, the population of Rojava Kurdistan, where the Kurds are dominant and control the land, has doubled. There are hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons there and they are still waiting for humanitarian aid from international organisations. Up to now, no refugees or IDPs there have received humanitarian aid from these bodies, so I ask you please to keep an eye on the IDPs. The conflict is not only between regime and non-regime groups; some other groups, such as those linked to al-Qaeda, are causing horrible situations. They block roads and they block regions, which is why most people could not receive humanitarian aid in Syria. Turkey is one of the key countries, opening its border and creating humanitarian aid corridors so that international organisations such as the United Nations, Red Cross and Red Crescent can provide international aid to IDPs in Syria.

      A humanitarian crisis has been unfolding in Syria before our eyes. We have all been witnesses to it, but nobody could prevent it by intervening properly to stop the bloodshed. Geneva 2 could be a chance to discuss it and stop it, but most of the democratic dynamics of Syria are not represented at Geneva 2. I am thinking of the Kurds, Armenians and Assyrians. The Kurds are not only helping IDPs, but protecting minorities in Syria.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Strik to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – First, I congratulate you on your election, Madam President. I am also grateful that Mr Muižnieks is attending our meeting, having addressed us.

      We talked about the situation in Syria and the position of Syrian refugees before, but we unfortunately have to talk about it again, and I thank the rapporteurs for putting it on the agenda again. The grave situation has deteriorated and will become even worse in future. We face the largest refugee problem in history, and now that the first peace talks have become deadlocked this week we cannot expect a quick end to the war. Even when the war comes to an end, a quick and sustainable return of refugees will be impossible, because the country has been completely destroyed. Be it infrastructure, houses, hospitals or schools, everything has gone. We therefore have to find both a short-term and a long-term solution. In the short term, one of the biggest challenges we face is to get access to the many IDPs and provide them with food, shelter and health care. That can be done only with sufficient political support, so I call especially on the Russian delegation here to urge Assad to co-operate with relief organisations on it.

      Most of the refugees outside Syria reside in the neighbouring countries, and Turkey is doing a great job in that regard. Other countries, especially Lebanon and Jordan, have almost collapsed because of the pressure. The number of refugees in Lebanon is one quarter of the number of its citizens. If the same were true in Germany and France, those countries would be receiving 20 million and more than 15 million refugees respectively The political situation in Lebanon is already so fragile that we might face a second war in that region, with the further human catastrophes that would bring. So active support, both financial and physical, is now needed. Many Syrian refugees are already trying to find a safe haven outside the region, with the lack of resettlement options forcing them to take a dangerous route by sea. They are not safe in transit countries such as Egypt, and those who manage to head for Europe either find themselves trapped in detention centres such as those in Greece or Bulgaria, or run the risk of being forced back to Turkey. We can expect a massive influx of Syrian boat refugees in the spring, so by doing nothing we put their lives at risk.

      Europe has to take its share of the number of refugees. UNHCR has asked for more resettlement and only Germany has invited 10 000 refugees. I hope that other European countries will follow that example, but it is too little – I hope that we will not be too late. Let us make a serious proposal: let us have more resettlement, a more generous visa policy for Syrians, and their relocation from Greece or Bulgaria. We have an effective tool for taking big steps: the European Union directive on temporary protection, which is intended for providing swift solutions on a larger scale. Please, friends, put this proposal on the agenda of your government so that European Union ministers have to decide on it.

      Ms OSBORNE (United Kingdom) – It is a pleasure to serve under your presidency, Madam President.

      As we all know, this is an unprecedented crisis. The plight of the most vulnerable refugees, who will find it most difficult to cope in the camps in the region, must be urgently addressed. Clearly, in addition to providing economic and technical assistance to the host countries in the region, donor countries must show willingness to undertake and/or expand resettlement and humanitarian admission programmes, in co-operation with UNHCR. It is to the credit of about 17 member States of the Council of Europe, including Germany, Sweden, France and, especially, Turkey, that they have offered places under the UNHCR resettlement and humanitarian admission of Syrian refugees programme. I was shocked to hear from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights that the response in Europe has been so inadequate. Until today, the UK Government had refused to offer a single place, but it has now announced a willingness to take a limited number when it was faced with a defeat in the UK Parliament later today. Our government had to be reminded that immigration policy is very different from Britain’s long tradition of providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution – the two issues should not be confused.

      The United Kingdom has, however, provided support totalling £600 million to the crisis appeal, which makes it the second largest donor. That is obviously welcome. That money includes £9.6 million of support to partners that are working in Syria and the region to help women at risk of, or recovering from, violence and sexual violence. The government has today announced that it will prioritise providing sanctuary in the UK to survivors of torture and violence and to women and children who are at high risk, in parallel to, but not as part of, the UNHCR Syrian humanitarian admissions programme.

      I welcome Amendment 4, which stands in the name of Ms Strik and others. A recent International Rescue Committee report on Syria noted not only sexual violence, but accounts of women trading sex for food and of desperate families selling their girls into early marriage to reduce household numbers or to pay rent. It also noted that domestic violence in refugee communities is often exacerbated by the economic stress and poor living conditions faced. Accordingly, we must broaden our support for women and girls in emergency situations to include tackling the full range of gender-based abuses that displaced women and women in conflict experience. When making funding decisions, donors should insist that UN agencies, non-governmental organisations and others make tackling violence against women and girls a priority in their programmes.

      I welcome the report before us and agree that it is vital to continue our work in this very difficult situation, which will clearly last for considerable time.

      Mr PFISTER (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur and other colleagues for this excellent report, which precisely describes the challenges for all European States. The situation in Syria means that Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan are now bursting at the seams. They are doing the best they can but they cannot do it alone. Unfortunately, there seem to be no signs that the causes of the flow of refugees will be overcome in the foreseeable future. We expect that the millions of refugees from Syria will not be able to return to their country for a very long time. Our countries and our governments are called upon to give better support to the main countries shouldering the burden in terms of financial, logistical and humanitarian means. The better the support that Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan get from European States, the lesser will be the danger of refugees falling into the clutches of trafficking gangs and finding themselves in life-threatening situations if they attempt to cross the Mediterranean to get into Europe.

      I want to add something about paragraph 41 of the explanatory memorandum. It is correct that Switzerland decided in the autumn of 2013 to make it easier for Syrian refugees to be reunited with their families. After the numbers rocketed, however, Switzerland had to go back on that choice, which shows that individual country decisions do not get anywhere, even if they mean well. All European countries are compelled to improve direct aid on the Syrian borders, to co-ordinate joint efforts better and to share refugees. Individual States cannot act alone and cannot cope with such a large flow of people. Europe must work together and show solidarity to deal with the problem. All Syrian refugees are entitled to protection and to return home as soon as the situation has improved. Europe must be much more committed to improving the situation than has so far been the case.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I thank the rapporteurs and the Commissioner for Human Rights. When it comes to Syria and Central Africa, we are dozing off, we are being hypocritical and we seem to have clear consciences. I think we should pay tribute to Turkey’s exceptional efforts. The rapporteur said that more than 1 million refugees had been taken in, so thank you, Turkey. The situation is different from that of Jordan, which has taken in refugees for a while and has a large immigrant population.

      The problems are piling up on top of each another. There are violence and security concerns and all kinds of trafficking. People are in need of everything. Children need to go school. They need more than generosity; they need solidarity. The problem is political, but we are a political Assembly and I want to put it in political terms, because we are not an NGO. The situation in the region has spiralled out of control and neighbouring countries are dealing with the consequences. We know about the problems experienced by refugees and minorities in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The Kurds are a large minority in many countries. Religious minorities also face difficulties as the conflict seems to have spiralled into a religious war. The Shiites, supported by Iran, are part of the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with Syria in the middle.

      We have to examine the situation in the region. I do not know whether the parties are speaking to one another, but it is good that they have met around a table. It is a great pity, however, that the Iranians are absent. They have made concessions in a transitional nuclear agreement, so perhaps they should have had a place at the table. It would have been a good signal. Iran is a major actor in the region and its responsibilities would have been tested. However, the fighting continues, more people are dying or fleeing and this deadly conflict moves forward. We have been able to ban chemical weapons and were almost able to achieve a ceasefire when the negotiations began. I support the amendment and hope that it will be adopted, because it is traditional weapons that are being used in Syria right now.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – I pay tribute to the remarkable investigative work of my fellow Frenchman, Jean-Marie Bockel, that has enabled this Assembly to get an accurate picture of the dramatic reality on the ground. The civil war has forced 2.2 million people, half of whom are children, into exile. Up to 4.5 million people have been displaced within the country and are living in precarious conditions or worse. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been overwhelmed by this uninterrupted influx of refugees, is being forced to make some painful choices. The situation is close to breaking point. Aid to those most in need, which was already inadequate, has been suspended for some 30% of refugees since October last year and yet needs are rocketing. According to the United Nations, $6.4 billion will need to be spent on Syrian refugees in 2014, but the donor conference in Kuwait on 15 January only managed to garner commitments to the tune of $2.4 billion. However, the commitments entered into at previous conferences, in particular those made by the Gulf States, are far from having been honoured.

      Several countries that border Syria are providing vital assistance to refugees. France is also taking in refugees and providing assistance to the Syrian National Coalition – the provisional government – particularly when it comes to local administration, the provision of basic services, energy, health, water and food security. France has also decided to join the multi-donor fund for the reconstruction of Syria that was initiated by Germany and the United Arab Emirates in the context of the Group of Friends of the Syrian People. Furthermore, France is providing non-offensive military aid to the Syrian National Coalition to protect the civilian population and is co-ordinating efforts with partners in the European Union. Finally, France has made available its best experts to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to aid the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal.

      In spite of all that, we are seeing that the limits of the humanitarian approach have appeared quickly. We need to find a political solution to the situation in Syria, where the war has been going on for far too long. The Syrian people are entitled to decide their own fate. We need a political transition government, endowed with full executive powers, to be established following the Geneva 2 conference, but things seem to have got off to a bad start. The Syrian opposition is divided and has been presented with a terrible dilemma, because participating in the conference means running the risk of being considered a traitor and not participating means offering Bashar al-Assad victory on a platter and upsetting the Friends of Syria Group. The Syrian National Coalition’s decision to participate is courageous and should be welcomed.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation) – One year ago, I spoke in this Chamber about this problem. At that time, I said that refugees do not just appear from nowhere. I called for support to the rebels to be stopped immediately because they are not rebels; they are terrorists. Some participants in the discussion one year ago were well aware of that. Moreover, some member countries of the Council of Europe have provided organisational and financial support to the terrorist groups. One the hand, they support the “rebels”, but on the other hand, they claim to be helping refugees. That is the highest form of hypocrisy. The whole world now knows that terrorist groups are fighting against Bashar al-Assad and that the terrorist groups are fighting each other.

      In Syria, there is not civil war, but colonial war and an attempt to grab power with the help of political technologies and terrorist groups. As with Iraq, Egypt and Libya, it is not about the defence of democracy. It is only about the fight for resources and ensuring their delivery to the United States of America and its allies. Those allies do not have democracy and freedom, but they do have a lot of money, and they have bought the loyalty and silence of some European countries. If that is not so, why do you keep silent about their politics? Or is the protection of human rights not a necessity for all? There is only one way to help refugees, and that is to eliminate the terrorists and stop the war. The most important thing is that we must investigate recent events and determine who supported the terrorists. Unless we do that, more people will be killed and more refugees will be created.

      Ms MATILLA (Finland) – I will approach the issue of Syrian refugees through the angle of NGOs. I have been active in NGOs and I have experienced the reality of crisis areas from much closer than most people here. After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, I worked on-site as a Red Cross delegate and witnessed the important work of that organisation. Last summer, I had the opportunity to meet the president of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent in Finland, and to my great sadness he told me about the enormous problems in his organisation’s work in Syria. Volunteers and workers have been killed, but that has not silenced the organisation. I admire their activity, but the situation saddens me.

      The Red Cross and the Red Crescent work for the refugees in the camps, but also at the crisis areas. It is clear that women and children are the biggest victims in those areas and the most vulnerable. If we have a tool to help them, we should use it. I would have liked to see the necessity of protecting the activities of NGOs through international conventions and sanctions mentioned in the resolution. I underline that the report lists few solutions, although it recognises that there is much need for assistance, and asks a lot of questions. It takes a snapshot of the situation.

      I am not trying to trivialise politicians or interstate actions. We all know that the State is a slow ship to turn, although not when it comes to war, it seems. Nor do I want to give a speech promoting one organisation; I want to promote all people giving humanitarian aid. It is deplorable that those offering help are under attack. The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are long-established in helping people in need. That tradition and practice must be allowed to continue. I believe that wars do not end by agreement, but through things such as humanitarian aid. Through politics, we must create a safe environment for these activities.

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – After three years of conflict, and with thousands of deaths and millions of refugees inside and outside of Syria, the problems continue and nothing is being done, because one member State of the Council of Europe is eager to carry on supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime. We have heard one representative of that country clearly distorting the reality. When you go to Syria, you can see the real problem. The first revolt against Bashar al-Assad was by democrats within the country. Because that revolt was not supported or assisted by us, it was quickly submerged and overwhelmed by Islamist bands, which entered Syria to combat the regime. They are being assisted and we are seeing Shiite bands fighting, supported and trained by Iran. We are in a deadlock, so what is left for us to do? We are just talking about humanitarian assistance and the aid that has to be provided to the countries taking in all these refugees. Some, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are being completely destabilised by the influx of refugees. Of course one can only endorse Mr Bockel’s excellent report and the comments and clarifications provided by the Commissioner for Human Rights, but, to be frank, this is a humiliating situation for us.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – First, I congratulate Mr Bockel on his very good report, which has many useful and practical proposals, and we hope they will be implemented as soon as possible. Taking refugees into Council of Europe countries is not the solution when 2.2 million Syrians have fled the country and there are 4.25 million internally displaced persons. We have to find other solutions. Other countries have to share responsibility, and I praise Sweden because it has done an excellent job with refugees.

      We have to look at solutions, and the only one is to stop the war. I am disappointed that the international community has not been able to stop the war. Unfortunately, the reports from the Geneva negotiations are not very encouraging. There first should be a ceasefire in the area, to at least guarantee that international organisations can deliver humanitarian material where it is needed. When Obama threatened Syria, there was suddenly an agreement between Syria and all the other partners, and weapons of mass destruction are now being taken away from Syria. I wonder whether we should ask Obama to threaten Syria again and say, “If there are no peaceful corridors to the camps, there will be military consequences.”

      Conditions in the refugee camps are terrible, and that is well-described in the report. We have a humanitarian duty to help people in those camps. We have to give all the material, help and resources we can to those camps to improve the quality of life there, but the main aim must be to guarantee that these people can return to their homes.

      We have the worst crime against humanity in the world in our time happening in front of us, and the international community is not doing anything, which is terrible. Fortunately something was done in Libya, but we would have the same situation in Libya that we have now in Syria if international forces had not been used to guarantee peace and to stop the killing of civilians in that country. Sometimes, even military force is needed to guarantee human lives.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I, too, would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for a clear, honest and open report. I also would like to thank him for inviting me to Paris as an expert for the hearing that was organised there.

      We cannot even imagine the situation in Syria. It is dramatic, and we need to send out an appeal. We also need to look at the situation of young women and girls in this part of the world, because thousands of young girls and women are being forced into prostitution and forced marriages. I was in Jordan two weeks ago, and the first question that the taxi driver asked me was whether I would like to get hold of a young girl at a cheap price. We went to the Zaatari camp on our visit and saw some six to 10 births every day that were the result of rape. I am glad that, two weeks ago, the Union for the Mediterranean – my friend Khalid will be speaking after me – took some responsibility for this refugee camp. I welcome that, and in the next two days and the first couple of weeks of February, we will look at the various refugee camps and organise concerted action. I myself will be visiting sites in Turkey.

      I ask colleagues to pass on the message in your home countries that we need monitoring by international security forces. We need camps for young girls and women who are not accompanied: we need to protect them. We have the terrible situation of forced marriages and marriages of convenience. When the fighters of the Free Syrian Army are granted leave, they go to these camps and get the young girls they want. This must be stopped. It is an absolutely terrible situation.

      I am loth to contradict people, but we are not talking about a civil war in Syria. Fifty different warlords are involved in the conflict. It is not a war of religion. Many different interest groups are taking up arms against each other, including Christians, Kurds and Armenians. They all have their controlled areas. There are more than a million internally displaced persons as a result of the actions of these people, and they are getting no aid or assistance. We cannot even guarantee a safe humanitarian corridor, because a single street can divide one community against another. So it is not simply two opposing fronts; the situation is much more complex than that.

      We need to understand the situation as it really is – one that will last for two decades or more. We therefore need to adopt a long-term perspective, but what we need immediately is a safe refuge for young women and girls.

      Mr CHAOUKI (Italy)* – For the sake of historical accuracy, we must recall that the first demonstration in Syria against the Assad regime calling for freedom and dignity for the Syrian people was one of the most beautiful, pacifist demonstrations. Students and schoolchildren were singing and chanting. It was a peaceful demonstration calling for freedom and democracy, and was the start of calls for freedom in Syria. It was bloodily put down and met with a violent reaction. We should have spoken out more forcefully then against the Assad regime and called for an end to such to violence. The situation now is complex, but if we want to be intellectually honest, we need to recall how things started. The rebels have taken recourse to arms in order to defend the civilian population. Violence is never acceptable, but it is important to recall the start of events in Syria.

      I thank the rapporteur for highlighting the situation of refugees. We visited a number of camps in the Mediterranean, and we have a duty to provide more assistance to neighbouring countries. It is not just a humanitarian emergency; there is a risk that neighbouring countries – Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – will be destabilised. We have a duty and an obligation to hold out some kind of medium-term prospect for Syrian refugees. It appears that there is no way out of the political situation – there will not be in the months to come – so we must hold out some prospect of a better life for them. The European Union is making a contribution, but a temporary plan needs to be drawn up at European Union level in order to assist the Syrian refugees. We need a humanitarian corridor, so that we can deal with speculative criminals and people who are exploiting the refugees’ dire circumstances.

      Some 3 300 Syrian refugees have been taken in, but we need to show more generosity and solidarity with Syria’s neighbouring countries, which are bearing the brunt of the effort. We member countries of the Council of Europe must do more in sharing that responsibility. Among those refugees are also Palestinian refugees, who are doubly exiled.

      Mr MIGNON (France)* – I want to thank the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and all the Committees of this Assembly, which do a tremendous job. It would be very hard to say which Committee is the most important, because each of them does a tremendous job.

      Once again, we are discussing the situation of women, men and children whom we call “refugees” and “displaced persons”. It is unbelievable that in 2014, we should still be obliged to have a Committee that looks at future of these people. What a terrible word “refugee” is! We are talking about men, women and children who have to leave their countries, their roots, and take refuge so that they can live in a dignified way and are not in danger every day. What other assemblies deal with such a subject? It is only us – we are the only ones.

      We have had many debates on this issue over several years. Last October, in fact, we had an “urgent procedure” debate on Syria. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and the Sub-Committee on Refugees has done much work on the issue. I accompanied them to Greece, so that I could visit such camps. For heaven’s sake, does anyone realise the connotations of the word “camp”? We are having to put into precarious camps women, men and children who have been completely uprooted and simply do not know what has happened to their families – whether they still have a father or a mother. You and I, my dear René, and others, have seen such situations in Greece.

      We must of course pay tribute to what countries such as Greece, Turkey, Italy, Bulgaria and Malta are doing. They are compelled to oblige all these people, who have nowhere to go – who do not know where to go in order to continue to live. Our respective Parliaments should be aware of what is actually going on. We cannot see what is actually happening live, as it were, simply by looking at television or logging on to social networks.

      Tomorrow, we will commemorate a tragic anniversary: the liberating of the camps. Here we are in 2014, and we in the West are not in a position to say, “No, let us have no more camps. Let’s put an end to that once and for all.”

      Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation)* – The events in Syria are an enormous tragedy for the 21st century. I am proud that my country, with the support of the United Kingdom, put an end to attempts at banditry by taking in a number of refugees. However, like many other speakers today, I believe that we cannot shut our eyes to events in Syria. Measures need to be taken now to help the ruling authorities find a way out of the political crisis and to get round the negotiating table with all the political parties who are calling for reform in the country. However, as we have all observed, this is a long way away from us and we have been on the sidelines. Now there are millions of refugees, and we are seeing that the civilisations we represent and have represented for many years have failed to put an end to this fighting, with bandits filling the void. We cannot yet get agreement among the various parties, but I hope that reason will prevail and we will manage to get all the forces round the negotiating table to reach an agreement to put an end to this horrific humanitarian disaster. Mr Mignon rightly pointed out that we are in such a quagmire that we cannot put an end to what we ourselves helped to create.

      The rapporteurs have rightly said that all States need to help the citizens of Syria – the children, first and foremost, and the women – to emerge from this dire situation and give them a chance to receive blood, elementary medical services and care until we can stabilise the situation in the country. Together we need to create the conditions for this to be resolved. We would like this process to be concluded as soon as possible. We, as parliamentarians, need to take an active part in it, not just stand on the sidelines and resign ourselves to reading reports in the newspapers and watching them on television. We need to do everything possible to stabilise the situation in the region in order to help ordinary citizens to have shelter and confidence in their future.

      Ms AMBLER (Observer from Canada) – The refugee crisis in Syria is a sobering reminder that political and diplomatic failures have enormous human consequences. I am encouraged by this Assembly’s continued contribution to the global effort that is needed to help the Syrian people, who are forced to endure the suffering that comes from armed conflict.

      The rapporteur has done a commendable job in drawing our attention to the deplorable situation faced by the Syrian people. It is unfathomable that up to 3 million Syrians have been displaced from their homes to escape the fighting, along with some 6.5 million internally displaced persons. It is unconscionable that over 120 000 Syrians have died in this conflict. We heard earlier that the main victims are children. An entire generation of children is in distress and has never known anything different. Millions of students have been forced out of schools as those schools become shelters or even targets. Child labour is rising at a faster rate than non-profits can respond to, and even access to vaccines is challenging. The World Health Organisation has confirmed a small outbreak of polio – the first in 14 years. The war has affected every aspect of these innocent lives.

      The situation of the refugees, in particular, continues to be precarious at best. Countries that have accepted large numbers of refugees, such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, face an impossible situation. While they should be commended for their generosity, the task is enormous and the solutions are temporary. Much humanitarian assistance from the international community has been directed to those in need, including over $350 million from Canada and a commitment to resettle 1 300 refugees, but the humanitarian needs continue to outweigh the available funding. Moreover, there is cause for deep concern that the humanitarian assistance that has been pledged by the international community is not reaching all those in need within Syria due to a lack of security, bureaucratic hurdles and the intransigence of those involved.

      Canada shares the concerns of the international community and the Council of Europe about the needless suffering of innocent Syrians. To be sure, humanitarian intervention must be continued and made more effective, but this is no substitute for a long-lasting political solution, which nevertheless remains elusive because of the lack of will among the various parties to the conflict. We should also be concerned about the growing evidence of involvement of radical jihadists and Syrian opposition groups and the outside assistance that they and the Assad regime are receiving. It is imperative to end the violence in Syria as quickly as possible. This can only happen through a Syrian-led political transition leading to the emergence of a free, democratic and pluralist Syria.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – The report by Mr Bockel makes sad reading. Despite the efforts made in the Geneva 2 negotiations, the situation in Syria is deteriorating. The number of refugees and internally displaced people is increasing, and for most, their situation is dire. It is timely that we are debating the Syrian refugee crisis shortly after the international humanitarian pledging conference. We, as parliamentarians, must do what we can to encourage our governments to contribute so that the goal of raising $6.5 billion can be met.

      The only positive aspect of the report notes that Turkey seems to manage its camps for Syrian refugees well. However, as the numbers grow it faces challenges. Mr Bockel’s description of the situation in Lebanon cannot be described as positive. He paints a bleak picture of refugees living in precarious conditions. The international community needs to pull together to prevent this refugee crisis escalating into a security crisis not only in Lebanon but in all the States bordering Syria.

      Contributing with humanitarian aid is important. Accepting Syrian refugees, easing the burden on Syria’s neighbours, is also important. However, it is equally important that a political solution to this continuous conflict is reached. Civilians are being targeted; even aid workers and medical facilities are being targeted. Syria is destroying its own people – destroying its future. It is encouraging that the parties were brought together again in Geneva, but discouraging to see that now they seem far apart and the hope for a negotiated agreement far away.

      Børge Brende, the Foreign Minister of Norway, said at the pledging conference: “We, the international community, owe it to the Syrian people, who continue to be the most important defenders of human dignity in this crisis, to do our utmost to support the ongoing peace negotiation efforts and contribute to lessen the burden of the refugee crisis in the States neighbouring Syria, as well as helping refugees directly.” I encourage you to appeal to your governments to contribute to solving the refugee crisis and to support the draft resolution proposed by Mr Bockel.

      (Mr Flego, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Thank you, rapporteur, for this very important piece of work. You remind us that the Syrian conflict is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century. Exemplary solidarity has been shown by the countries neighbouring Syria, but we should not forget that the Syrian drama is one that affects all of us. I am particularly worried about the fate of the internally displaced persons, who apparently number more than 4 million. It is true that the UNHCR has launched a Syrian humanitarian assistance and response plan – SHARP. Its purpose is to provide health care, shelter and the kinds of supplies that will protect these people against the winter cold. There is also the issue of food aid, which is in the remit of regional organisations.

      The conflict and the very intense battles make it very difficult for the operations targeting internally displaced persons to be carried out properly. Due to this insecurity it is very difficult to move around the country. Communication is very often disrupted and UNHCR access to the target population is unfortunately very limited. That is why the UNHCR relies on national partners, such as the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, and local NGOs to organise things locally. Without the courage of these men and women who try to bring aid to the target population, often risking their lives while doing so, international solidarity would be a mere fiction.

      There is also the problem of the Syrian displaced persons – more than 250 000, according to the UNHCR – who are currently living under siege in intense combat zones. As a consequence, they are basically off-limits for any kind of humanitarian assistance programme. We have all these obstacles but the UNHCR would like to help more than 3 million displaced persons during this year – out of total estimated at 4.2 million.

      Rapporteur, you mentioned the support given by our Assembly to the appeal issued to the parties in conflict by Mr Beyani, saying that it is so important to help displaced persons. The so-called Homs deal that was negotiated by Mr Brahimi, the UN mediator, in the past few days in Geneva is perhaps a first step and maybe humanitarian convoys will finally be able to reach out to the populations under siege. Incidentally, only the case of Homs was mentioned during the Geneva 2 conference, which is a pity. The humanitarian tragedy that the Syrian people are experiencing right now will be resolved only if peace returns, but every day, every minute, Syrian men, women and children have to leave their country; they have to flee or they have to hide as bombs rain down on them, and unfortunately many of them die. Therefore, it really has become a matter of urgency and we must act now.

      Ms JOHNSEN (Norway) – I thank Mr Bockel for his excellent report and I support the resolution. The humanitarian crisis in Syria is the worst we have seen this century. It is indeed a tragedy, especially for children and young people. Reports of atrocities and statistics of how many have fled the country are continually increasing. The grim facts are that 2.2 million Syrians, including 1.1 million children, have fled the country. Nearly 7 million people in Syria are in need of help. The situation can only be solved politically. This will take time.

      Brave humanitarian volunteers and workers are doing their utmost to save lives inside Syria, often risking their own lives. They deserve our deepest gratitude and respect, as do their colleagues in neighbouring countries. Syria’s neighbouring countries – Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq – are providing shelter and relief for millions of Syrian refugees. This is a heavy burden. They deserve our full support. We hear that two out of every five hospitals in Syria do not function and in some areas half the doctors have fled.

      The education system is under extreme pressure. My concern is that 1.1 million children are not receiving proper education and are in danger of becoming illiterate. They are also traumatised by the war. One can only imagine how this terrible experience will affect their future lives. I therefore call for education and aid for children and the young to be prioritised. I support specific education programmes for Syrian children in the host countries and I back the effort to promote education for internally displaced Syrian children.

      The United Nations estimates that $6.5 billion is needed to meet the huge humanitarian crisis. Norway is contributing about $75 million. It is a start. Humanitarian aid means the difference between life and death for refugees. All countries must contribute. As stated in the report, women and children were the first victims. It is important to ensure proper protection of children and the young. As has also been stated, young females are in an especially vulnerable position. In seeking asylum, children and women must have priority and all countries in Europe must reinforce their reception capacity for Syrian refugees.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – It is a bit of a cliché to say it but I am afraid that we must recognise that Syria’s dreadful war can be solved only by the Syrians. It took us a bit of time to get into that space. When we last had this debate in the autumn, you may remember that just a month before we – the West – had been in imminent danger of bombing Syria, which would have been a disastrous policy. We have at least moved away from this and despite all the criticism that has been made of our Russian friends, there has now been a degree of co-operation between America, Russia and other players in getting rid of chemical weapons.

      It is not going to solve the civil war but I honestly think that the best we can do is to concentrate our efforts on humanitarian aid. I am very proud that the United Kingdom has given £600 million in humanitarian aid. We are actually the second biggest donor in the world; 320 000 people have been helped with food aid and 300 000 people have been helped with medical consultations. I do not believe that sending more weapons into a society already awash with weapons is going to solve the problem; nor can we solve it by thinking that we can accept a huge number of refugees. There is no appetite for that. It is only a token response. There are 2.5 million people displaced: the United Kingdom is taking several hundred; France is taking several hundred. We can do a little bit to take the people who are most abused and traumatised.

      The real solution, if there is one, is to concentrate our efforts on humanitarian aid. Like Mr Mignon, we may feel angry that refugees and refugee camps still exist in the 21st century but we have to be realistic and raise the efforts of everybody in Europe to the level of the best in terms of humanitarian assistance. By all means, let Mr Obama put pressure on Mr Assad about creating humanitarian corridors – by all means use pressure – but we must realise that we in Europe are only spectators in this. All we can do, with our limited resources, is to help those most in need.

      Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – Field reports on the humanitarian situation in Syria are alarming and show growing endangerment, even starvation, while humanitarian workers are still being denied access. Therefore, a swift, co-ordinated and efficient response by the international community is necessary. In line with the capacities at its disposal, my country Croatia is doing everything in its power to contribute to alleviating the suffering of the civilians affected by the Syrian conflict. We have taken steps to provide family reunification. Many of us can bring positive examples from our respective countries.

      However, when I attended the most recent meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean, representatives of Syrian civil society and medical workers warned us that international engagement should not be a competition in humanitarian aid. I understood their bitterness and disappointment. Still, while there are ongoing talks for a peaceful resolution of the Syrian crisis, all of us have to support the implementation of the medium and long-term integrated humanitarian approach and to endorse the need for a co-ordinated approach to achieve greater efficiency and transparency.

      We have constantly to raise awareness about the fact that women are most affected by armed conflict, while also being used as a weapon of war. Women are victims of rape and sexual abuse and are forced into early marriages, prostitution and crimes of honour. They are victims of repudiation, as well as of malnutrition, lack of water, many diseases and lack of health care. Council of Europe States should provide further financial and material support to countries hosting Syrian refugees, to help them face the crisis. They should work to share the burden, guaranteeing the rights of refugees – especially to women who are victims of violence and demand asylum. States should ensure adequate conditions for women asylum seekers.

      We have to show solidarity and do everything in our power to provide Syrian children with the right to an education: a place in school as refugees. I was a refugee myself, more than 20 years ago. The country that I am representing today gave me refugee status and access to education. If I had not had that opportunity, the chances of my making this speech today would have been rather lower. Syrian refugees have to be provided with the right to an education and work. That is the least we can do to prevent them from losing their futures.

      Mr TRIANTAFYLLOS (Greece)* – I thank the rapporteur for an exhaustive and detailed piece of work and the Commissioner for Human Rights not only for the stand that he has taken today but for all his practical efforts to uphold human rights and to help change our mindset on migration issues in Europe and the management of refugee camps.

      I come from an island in the north of the Aegean; the Commissioner was describing something that I see every day with my own eyes. People – some of them children – arrive who have witnessed the horror of war. You can see how much they have suffered. In my island, ordinary citizens, the Church, the army and the business community try to provide meals for such people. Seaport officers try to provide assistance on the waters of the Aegean. We should not forget what has been done. People should not be pushed back; we do not want any refoulement in the Aegean. However, decisions should be taken swiftly, and as an international community we must insist on a cease-fire. We should also support neighbouring countries, which are bearing the brunt.

      We should not be hypocritical; although impressive, the figures are often limited. The burden should be shared according to the abilities of individual countries – only then can we talk of any kind of unity in Europe or really come to the assistance of Syrian refugees. Many of Europe’s societies are in crisis but we must look to the future, as we will be able to if we share responsibilities. We must ensure that decisions are acted on in practice.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Sabella, from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – I thank Mr Bockel and Mr Dişli for their reflective report and opinion. The issue of Syrian refugees is having an impact on neighbouring communities. As the report points out, women and children pay the heaviest price. Furthermore, in Syria today, as has been mentioned, there are more than 250 000 Palestinian refugees and displaced people. That puts added pressure on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and on the Palestinian National Authority as well as on Jordan, Lebanon and other countries hosting those Palestinian refugees.

      I may be naive but I want to stress that the solution is not simply about accepting Syrian refugees in Europe; we should also examine how those refugees, particularly women and children, can be repatriated to Syria itself – some geographical areas there are relatively at peace. We must also stress to the Syrian Government and opposition groups the importance of having their populations return to their towns, communities and villages. The efforts of Council of Europe States to assist Syrian refugees are very welcome, but in the final analysis, the political solution should be insisted on. There is a special role for both Russia and the United States in ensuring that the Geneva conference comes to a positive conclusion for the sake of the Syrian population.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – The question of Syrian refugees also gives rise to problems in Morocco, which is receiving hundreds of families. Before I deal with that issue, I should first refer to my country’s position on the Syrian tragedy. That has two dimensions. On the political dimension, Morocco is one of the friends of Syria, and it hosted the second Friends of Syria congress. Morocco supports any initiative that can produce a return to stability and confirmation of the sovereignty and the free choice of the Syrian people. Morocco feels that humanitarian concerns should be taken on board and there should be protection for civilians, especially the vulnerable.

      On this humanitarian dimension, the Kingdom decided on 10 August 2012 to open a hospital in the Zaatari camp in Jordan. His Majesty the King gave his support and visited it and the chief physician receives between 1 000 and 1 200 refugees per day. There are already about 38 000 refugees who have received care and support.

      Many thousands of Syrian refugees came to Morocco at the beginning of the war. They were escaping atrocities and they continue to arrive in Morocco. According to the NGOs, the number of Syrians coming into Morocco, particularly across the Algerian border, is constantly increasing. So far about 5 000 families have asked for residence permits or refugee status, to have their status regularised in Morocco. New provisions have been established following the policy declared and implemented by Morocco in August 2013. We are making great efforts to look after these refugees who are arriving en masse across the Algerian border. Morocco is also adopting institutional law concerning the problem of refugees and is asking for support from the Council of Europe and the Assembly in drawing up this new immigration policy, especially with regard to refugees in general and Syrian refugees in particular.

      THE PRESIDENT – I now call Ms Al-Astal, from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms AL-ASTAL (Palestine.) – Mr Bockel, I thank you for this important report. The Syrian crisis has gone on for too long and has had unacceptable humanitarian consequences. Women and children have suffered most in this crisis, and they make up about 75% of the refugees. They suffer from lack of food, clothing and medicine, and most of the women are sexually abused or are forced into marriage and the children are denied access to education and health care and are forced into work. They are also victims of sexual violence and other crimes.

      I want to focus on Palestinian refugees in Syria, especially in the Yarmouk camp. There were more than 400 000 inhabitants of that camp but during the Syrian crisis most of them have been displaced into other camps or went to Lebanon, which is facing many great difficulties of its own. There are now about 20 000 people in Yarmouk. They are suffering in all aspects of life and have been under a blockade for a long time. For six months military groups have prevented food, medicine and other important material from entering the camp. There have been about 50 cases of deaths from hunger and lack of food and medicine.

      In the name of solidarity and responsibility, I call for support for Palestinian refugees in Syria, and especially those in Yarmouk camp. I also call on the Syrian parties to the conflict to respect humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions, and to authorise the access of humanitarian workers to Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, especially for the sake of women, children and other vulnerable groups, so as to provide them with important and urgently needed assistance.

      I hope this important issue will be put on the table at Geneva 2, and I thank you all for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT – I now call the last speaker, Mr Bensaid. He is not here.

      That concludes the list of speakers. Does Mr Muižnieks wish to respond briefly to the debate?

      Mr MUIŽNIEKS – Yes, we are largely spectators of events in Syria, but we can be participants and players in improving the human rights of Syrian refugees in Council of Europe member States and our own countries.

      What can the Council of Europe do to help address the Syrian refugee crisis? The Council of Europe Development Bank can provide assistance. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture can examine conditions of detention. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance can examine instances of hate speech, discrimination and violence against new arrivals. My office can put a spotlight on the issue in my country work and thematic work. However, I think PACE members can do the most.

      They can do the most when they get back home to their countries. I urge Assembly members to ask themselves and their Governments a series of questions. How many Syrian refugees has your country agreed to take in through resettlement? Can your country not do more? What is your country’s recognition rate of Syrian refugees? Are you giving them the protection they deserve? If you see your own country as a transit country, not a destination country, maybe you should take pause and ask whether that is because your asylum procedures are inadequate, your reception centres are awful and you provide no assistance to people to integrate. Are there reports that your country is pushing back Syrian refugees from land or sea borders? Is your country’s unwillingness to do more linked to toxic debates and stereotyped views about Islam and Muslims?

      This is not only a humanitarian issue; it is a human rights issue involving the right to seek and receive asylum, the prohibition on collective expulsions, and the prohibition on inhumane and degrading treatment. What can we do to ensure these human rights are upheld in our member States? These are questions we should all be asking. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Bockel, rapporteur, to reply. You have five minutes.

      Mr BOCKEL (France.)* – It is encouraging that most of the speeches have been along the same lines and have strengthened our convictions in the Assembly.

      The Commissioner for Human Rights referred to the duty to take in a certain number of these refugees in Europe. Some countries have pledged to do so – more or less, and perhaps not enough. As several colleagues have said, however, we need to keep in mind that most of the refugees are not especially minded to come to Europe. Most of them – the millions of them in the bordering States or in their own country – are more minded to return to home. Some may well want to be in Europe, too, of course.

      For millions of people humanitarian concerns are pressing in the short term. There is the question of humanitarian corridors. Reference has been made to Homs, but it is true in general that these humanitarian corridors are required. They are on the negotiating table at Geneva 2, and I referred implicitly in my statement to the great countries that can have an impact and exert pressure on the Syrian Government on these humanitarian issues, and others have been more explicit in singling out Russia. I think they are right to do so, and we expect a great deal of such pressure.

      A number of colleagues, including Mr Schennach from Austria and people who have been on the ground, spoke about the problems facing women, particularly sexual violence, forced marriages and prostitution – even of minors. It is true that this is a tragedy within a tragedy. That is a specific dimension in this tragedy that requires action on the part of all of us, with specific, targeted, tailored and swift responses.

      Several colleagues referred to smooth co-ordination within the European Union and greater Europe, and to better co-ordination of assistance with the various countries directly affected. I take into account what Mr Triantafyllos from Greece said about what each of us is capable of doing. That is another issue.

      Mr Fournier, I think, referred to the inadequacy of food aid and humanitarian assistance. The UN Refugee Agency has exhausted the resources at its disposal, so some refugees do not even have food aid, at least not to an acceptable extent.

      I do not want to go over some of the more marginal – and rare – comments, fudging the distinction between terrorists and refugees; those are not worthy of comment.

      Several colleagues said that, against the backdrop of Geneva 2, humanitarian assistance forces us to talk about politics. Political demands are being made on the basis of immediate humanitarian predicament, which is all to the good. That is part and parcel of our role.

      I agree with monitoring and tracking the destinations of assistance. I think the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and others will undertake that work. To that end, we have been greatly encouraged by the Commissioner.

      To Mr Rouquet, the issue of internally displaced persons is of major concern, which brings me back to politics and pressure, which I do not think we can overemphasise.

      I join the tributes paid to humanitarian workers. We can only express admiration for their courage and for the efficiency of their endeavours.

      Ms Mulić repeated the point that I stressed in the report. Unfortunately, we are where we are, and will be for some time yet. Differences between camp sectors and the lack of school access for children are major concerns, which we will have to address.

      One of our Palestinian colleagues said that the specificity of refugees should be emphasised. Finally, Morocco’s remarkable commitment to humanitarian issues warrants an underscore.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? I call Mr Mariani.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – In my capacity as chair of the committee, I would like to thank the speakers in the debate, particularly the Human Rights Commissioner for his address, my compatriot Jean-Marie Bockel, and the rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for a relevant opinion and for the amendments that round off the text neatly. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has examined and approved the amendments.

      As the Syrian conflict enters its fourth year, we are forced to note that more and more refugees are arriving. According to the UN Refugee Agency, their number was up 340% in 2013. Like previous speakers, I appeal for solidarity among nations. The question is not just about humanitarian aid, but about preserving – or attempting to preserve – the rather precarious balance in a country threatened by all forms of extremism.

      To conclude, I stress the need to continue to follow the situation of Syrian refugees, particularly vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied migrant children and children who suffer from violence. We have heard testimony that should not leave us indifferent. As an Organisation that upholds human rights, it is incumbent on us to continue to fight to put an end to this violence.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.

      They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the organisation of debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the chair of the Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 6, 4 and 3 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      I understand that the committee has amended and agreed to amendments 2 and 5, but because they were amended, they do not meet the requirements of the unanimous approval rule and will have to be considered separately by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Mariani?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 6, 4 and 3 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      The following amendments are adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Parliamentary Assembly dealt with the situation of Syrian refugees in its Resolution 1902 (2012) on the European response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, adopted in October 2012; in its current affairs debate, held in April 2013, on Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq: how to organise and support international assistance?; in its Resolution 1940 (2013) on the situation in the Middle East, adopted in June 2013 and in its Recommendation 2026 (2013) on the situation in Syria, adopted by the Assembly in October 2013”.Am

      Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Ms Miladinović, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Ilić, Mr Timchenko and Ms Kazakova, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly welcomes the start of the international peace conference on Syria in Montreux as well as the initiation of the process of the dialogue between Syrians on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, supported by the UN Security Council resolution of 27 September 2013. The Assembly hopes that the outcome of the Conference will be the transition from the logic of war to the logic of peace, achievement of stability and reconciliation, and building of a new Syria, in which all Syrians would feel comfortable”.Am

      Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Arib, Mr De Vries, Ms Maij, Mr Jónasson, Mr Kox, Mr Von Sydow, Mr Fenech Adami, Ms Tuiksoo, Mr Villumsen, Ms Zappone, Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Kalmár and Mr Ghiletchi, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 12.12, add the following words:

“by actively involving Syrian female refugees in management and decision-making inside the camps, preventing child and forced marriages, and providing safe and accessible sanitary facilities and psychological support for traumatized women and children.”

      Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12.15, insert the following paragraph:

“ensure that the humanitarian consequences of the Syrian conflict, both in Syria and in the neighbouring countries, including the need for urgent international assistance, are put as a priority on the agenda of the international peace conference on Syria (Geneva 2);”

      THE PRESIDENT – We come now to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly underlines that the problems posed by the dramatic situation of refugees and displaced persons in Syria and in receiving countries can only be solved if there are prospects for peace and a political solution to the conflict, and reiterates its support for the international peace conference on Syria (Geneva 2).”I

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 2 on behalf of the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – The amendment recommends seeking a political result from the Geneva 2 conference.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come now to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Durrieu, Lord Anderson, Ms Bakoyannis, Mr Kox, Mr Loukaides and Mr Baykal, which is, at the end of Amendment 2, add the following sentence:

      “In this dramatic context, it calls on all belligerents to stop fighting.”Do

      Does anyone wish to speak in support of Sub-Amendment 1? I call Mr Dişli.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – Ms Durrieu’s sub-amendment calls for all parties in the conflict to stop fighting, in addition to our recommendation about Geneva 2.

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

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Mr Dişli.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I am in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee? I call Mr Mariani.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee? I call Mr Mariani.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Makhmutov, Mr Timchenko, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Leonid Kalashnikov, Mr Romanovich and Mr Burkov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

      “The international community has to put real humanitarian aid in place on the basis of international humanitarian law and in accordance with the statement by the President of the UN Security Council of 2 October 2013”. I

      I call Mr Makhmutov to support Amendment 5.

      Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation)* – The amendment proposes adding words to the end of paragraph 1 of the resolution so that the rules are the same when it comes to humanitarian assistance.

      THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Bockel wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:

      In Amendment 5 to delete the word “real”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I therefore call Mr Bockel to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – The committee thinks that the word “real” might imply that the aid, which might be insufficient, may not be real either. That is not what we are saying and I do not think it is what is meant in Amendment 5. Removing the word “real” will not affect the amendment’s clout, but it will help us avoid any misunderstanding.

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

      What is the opinion of Mr Makhmutov?

      Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation)* – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT – We will now consider the Amendment 5, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the Monitoring Committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 5, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13372, as amended.

      The vote is open.

3. Migrants: ensuring they are a benefit for European host societies

Integration tests: helping or hindering integration?

Joint debate

      THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. The first is entitled, “Migrants: ensuring they are a benefit for European host societies”, Document 13367, presented by Ms Athina Kyriakidou; the second is titled, “Integration tests: helping or hindering integration?”, Document 13361, presented by Ms Tineke Strik.

      Speaking is limited to three minutes. We will aim to finish this item at 8 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.40 p.m.

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

      Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – Some politicians and media outlets hold and loudly express the view that migrants present a burden to host societies in Europe. Although it is important to take such concerns seriously, there is increasing evidence that migrants are not a burden on public funds. Instead, they make many positive contributions to the societies in which they live.

      During the course of preparing this report, I was surprised at the vast amount of evidence and examples that showed how beneficial and positive migration has been and can be for receiving countries. That wealth of contributions brought by migration and the lack of recognition given to it demonstrates precisely why this report is so important. It and today’s discussion are particularly important at a time when the majority of migration stories in public, media and political discourses focus instead on what many perceive to be the problems of diverse societies.

      One purpose of the report is to shift our focus to examining the contributions made by migrants to member States and to look honestly at the reality of their contributions to Council of Europe member States. My aim is to highlight a side of migration that has so far received too little attention in an overly negative debate in which migrants are mainly portrayed as being a burden on public finances and a threat to social cohesion.

      Without wanting to undermine concerns about Europe’s experience of multiculturalism, particularly in relation to second-generation migrants, I ask colleagues to focus on the contributions made by migrants and how to make sure that we can all – migrants and society – benefit as much as possible. That will be achieved partly by the successful integration of migrants. Most importantly, however, I emphasise that it is vital for member States to act to make sure that migrants are a benefit. If they do not take steps to integrate them, the risk of failure rises. It is, therefore, vital for member States to make a conscious decision on migration and integration, approaching it as an opportunity rather than as a burden.

Many countries have understood that. The recent coalition agreement in Germany states: “we understand immigration as an opportunity, without ignoring its associated challenges”. That relates to one of the report’s main conclusions, namely that immigration is not automatically a benefit or a burden for host societies. Rather, it represents a choice for member States that will depend on the steps they take “in terms of the migrants they accept on their territory and their commitment to integration, which has to be a two-way process involving both migrants and the host society.”

      My report considers three main areas in which migrants contribute to host societies: the economy; the polity; and the civitas. I will focus now on some of my main findings, although the report records many more examples of the positive role that migrants play in the societies they live in. First, it is clear that migrants do not present an economic burden to societies. The OECD’s recent report has shown that, overall, migrants are not a drain on the public purse, and another study by the European Commission found that mobile European Union citizens are no burden on national security systems. Overall, migrants make a significant contribution to the labour market: they fill an important labour shortage, thus contributing to growth; they carry out low-paid, dangerous, insecure and difficult jobs, which many nationals do not want to do; and, as entrepreneurs, they employ 2.4% of all employees. Some sectors, such as construction, tourism or seasonal agriculture, rely particularly heavily on migrants. Migrants also contribute economically in other ways. As international students, they support higher education systems in Europe and bring money into the host societies. The employment of migrants also leads to links with foreign markets, providing new outlets for business growth. International students also provide a new pool of highly qualified labour and have often contributed to good international relations.

      It is also important to mention some demographic trends. As is well known, Europe is ageing and its work force is set to fall considerably over the next decades. The working age population in the European Union is set to have fallen by 10.5% by 2050. That, together with low fertility rates that are often below the replacement level, as in Germany, means that sustaining current levels of prosperity and welfare presents considerable challenges. Migration can help to alleviate such problems. On some projections, it is estimated that Europe will need between 40 million and 60 million immigrant workers by 2050 just to sustain its current prosperity and welfare. Furthermore, we should not underestimate the cultural enrichment that migration brings. I am sure it will not take you long to think of a writer, actor, director, artist or athlete with a migrant background, and all of us will have at some point enjoyed the diverse culinary possibilities that migrants have brought to our countries. All of these things open up opportunities for intercultural and inter-faith dialogue and interactions.

      Despite all that, it is worrying how often migrants are being wrongly portrayed as a burden on finances, and are blamed by some for economic problems in Europe. Linked to that is an increase in far right and extremist opinions, which are finding their way into mainstream debates. Together, those things create an increasingly hostile environment for migrants in Europe, and my report seeks to explode such myths. It provides overwhelming evidence that migrants are a benefit to society and not a drain on the public purse, and it is important to acknowledge the recent OECD report on this topic. It is important to tackle the misconceptions about migrants by portraying the impacts of migrants fairly and accurately. The media should be encouraged to use impartial, accurate information and research, and to use less emotive language. It is important that we politicians show responsibility in this sensitive debate. We must not allow extremist views and terminology to become part of the accepted mainstream discourse. I would go even further, by suggesting that politicians lead the public debate away from misconceptions, which damage migrants and their prospects for integration.

      In conclusion, I emphasise that States have a choice about whether migrants become more of a benefit or a burden for the societies they live in. By investing in integration measures and considering integration as a two-way process, States can ensure that migration will be largely beneficial to host societies. That can be done by promoting the economic participation of migrants: removing legal and other barriers; increasing the educational levels and achievements of migrants; tackling discrimination and promoting equality; and facilitating democratic participation. Such measures will further contribute to the sense of belonging for migrants.

      I wish to draw attention to the current burden on southern Mediterranean countries, because it is of the utmost importance that member States provide assistance to those struggling countries. That will further strengthen and intensify solidarity between European countries, at all levels, so that there is a more equitable distribution of burden-sharing throughout Europe. That will also allow host countries to meet even better their human rights obligations when dealing with migrants.

      Last but not least, I express my sincere gratitude to the secretariat of our committee for their precious support and hard work on this report. I really look forward to the debate.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kyriakidou. You have two minutes remaining. I call Ms Strik, the rapporteur, to present the second report. You, too, have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – For a long time, European countries have been trying to develop an adequate integration policy. We have learned from the past that labour migration without attention to the needs and integration of labour migrants can harm both them and our society. Good integration and participation is beneficial for all parties in society, and to reach that level efforts are needed on the part of all the actors: the authorities; the native citizens; and the migrants. The basis for that is migrants learning the language of the country of residence and getting to know society, so authorities should organise and offer adequate education, and migrants should make a strong effort to learn the language.

      Countries develop their integration policy by trial and error, but in the past decade the emphasis in a number of countries has shifted from a common responsibility towards the migrant having sole responsibility. Instead of being an objective, integration has increasingly become a condition for migrants. The migrant first has to prove his integration before he is able to participate in, or even, sometimes, to enter, the country. That is neither fair nor effective, as I will explain.

In a number of northern countries, including the Netherlands, family members from outside Europe first have to pass an integration examination before they are allowed to join their family in Europe. Germany and France offer language courses outside Europe, but countries such as the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and the United Kingdom do not. In addition, the level of the tests has increased during the past years, and it is possible – this happens – that the spouse is not able to pass the examination. That might be because there is no educational offer or the education level of the spouse is too low. Illiterate people, people who have another alphabet and elderly people face serious problems in passing these exams. Migrants in a war or post-war situation fail the tests relatively more often. They often live in harsh circumstances and have to undertake dangerous trips to reach embassies to complete the test.

As a result, family reunification can be delayed for a long time and sometimes even permanently blocked. At the Council of Europe, we have committed ourselves to the right to family life and to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and European Union member States have even established the right to family reunification. Those rights aim to serve the integration of migrants, because people flourish if they are able to live as a family. Children also integrate best if they can be reunited with their family in the new country as soon as possible. So we establish the rights, but we then hamper them with requirements that are not feasible for all migrants. With that, we have made the right to family life a selective right that is available to well-educated, young and rich migrants only. That should not be acceptable for the Council of Europe.

      Integration tests are not only a problem on entrance. Migrants also have to pass further tests within a certain time or run the risk of being expelled. That creates immense pressure and often has a counterproductive effect in that migrants do not feel integrated at all. You can push for integration, but if you threaten people, you will not achieve what you want, namely that migrants feel at home and start participating. Integration is above all a mental process that can be stimulated by a welcoming policy, good education, access to the labour market and combating discrimination.

      Security of residence is a vital requirement for migrants to invest their future in Europe. Permanent residence status offers such security and more possibilities for integration. For example, employers often prefer migrants with permanent status and banks require it for granting a mortgage. Acquiring the nationality of the country offers even more security and the right to political participation. Member States have a big interest in promoting the integration of migrants and, most of all, their sense of belonging. They should therefore design accessible procedures to gain permanent residence status and naturalisation and should take into account the different levels of education and competences among migrants.

      Another problem is what and how to measure. You are not necessarily perfectly integrated if you can answer difficult questions about the history or culture of a country. On the other hand, if you cannot answer them, that does not mean that you are not well integrated. In many cases, even citizens of the country in question are not able to give the right answers, but no one concludes that they are not integrated. Even illiterate people can cope well in society and can have a lot of social contacts, so you have to be very careful in choosing indicators for a person’s level of integration, which is even more important if the result has consequences for the migrant’s right of residence.

      Over the past 10 years, the difficulty of the tests for permanent residence and naturalisation has increased significantly. They are one-size-fits-all and no individual element is taken into account. If you have low education or if you are a traumatised refugee, you still have to pass the same test. We are already seeing a massive decrease in the number of applications for permanent residence and naturalisation. As a result, more and more migrants are stuck in an insecure residence situation for years and years – maybe permanently. Most of them will not leave the country, but they will find integrating more difficult, which affects not only them but society as a whole.

      My conclusion is that the connection between integration tests and residence rights shows that our integration policy has gone too far. It impinges on human rights and can actually hinder integration. Tests can be used in integration policy, but only in a way that fits with their purpose, such as measuring the level of language skills in order to offer tailor-made language education. Tests should not be a tool for immigration policy, at least not in the area of family reunification or a more secure status after years of residence, because they then become an instrument of exclusion, which affects vulnerable people the most. Instead of giving them the most support, we give them the least support. I therefore conclude that integration tests for residence rights are unfair and ineffective and distract from real and effective integration policies. Almost all migrants are eager to learn the language and to acquire a good position in society. Let us work on effective measures, such as empowering migrants and investing in education, give migrants full access to our society and labour market and combat discrimination. You will see that integration will follow naturally.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Strik. You have four and a half minutes remaining.

      I now call Mr Binley, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their considerable effort. They have made a welcome contribution to the work of this Organisation. I also welcome the opportunity to explain the situation from the perspective of British communities while giving a wider context.

      I will start with the facts. Over the course of the last year, net migration rose by 182 000 in my country, and yet my government was elected on a mandate to bring that down to 100 000. In terms of flows, more than 500 000 people settle in the UK each year and immigration from the European Union is increasing by some 25 000 to 30 000 a year. The narrative is clear. Immigration from non-European Union flows are reducing while migration to the United Kingdom from the European Union is increasing and more people are settling in Britain. However, the issue on the ground is about not only volume, but also speed, timing, concentration and the unevenness of flows. We must recognise that integration takes time and that there are measures that will help immigrants become more integration-ready. The report argues that integration tests are not problematic, per se, but it does highlight a considerable number of so-called limitations to the practice. More evidence is needed to see whether they will be substantiated.

      It should also be noted that three quarters of new jobs created in the UK since 1997 have been taken by immigrants, and the impact on the wages of the most-poorly paid has been detrimental. In many cases, the impact on local services is unsustainable. My own general hospital has seen a 16% increase in footfall through its accident and emergency department in the last year. A primary school in Northampton provides education for children drawn from 31 different mother tongues. Both are serious problems, but are just two examples from one population centre and are repeated in many others. We should also recognise that there is an understandable tendency for migrant communities to cluster. While it is true that the typical demographic of the median European Union migrant is young and hungry to be economically active, it is not always presented in that manner, which I find regrettable.

      In conclusion, we need a debate based on facts, not emotion. We must recognise the additional pressures on infrastructure and on-going costs that an ageing immigrant population demands. We must not undervalue community cohesion. Finally, we need to consider nations ability’ to control immigration temporarily when pressures overwhelm social structures. Failure to do so damages the immigrant and adds to the vitriol that extremists often project. That is not in the interests of the indigenous citizens or the immigrants who come to a country.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Stroe, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – The report is very well written. The main finding is that the process of migration is a benefit for European societies, and we underline that it is unfair to describe migrants as a burden to society. Most are willing to work hard and to contribute to society as any other citizen of their host country would. Often, they take jobs not wanted by native citizens and in some countries entire economic sectors, such as construction, agriculture and tourism, depend on migrant workers. Moreover, migrants create opportunities for developing trade and for enhancing cultural exchange among countries. They are also a viable solution to the demographic challenges of host societies.

      As a Liberal, one particular point in this report drew my attention, which is the chapter on the entrepreneurial contribution of migrants. Many important companies, as the report notes, were launched by migrants and those companies generate jobs. New economic opportunities have been created because of the presence of migrants. New financial institutions – the so-called migrant banks – were created by the flow of remittances. Migrant entrepreneurs facilitate trade between their home country and the country they live in. A recent study shows that migration encourages direct foreign investments. We should convince people that it is better for their economic prosperity to have an open labour market that provides equal opportunities for all. As politicians, we must try to explain to our citizens in a fair manner the positive effects of migration to their country. Before ending my speech, I will briefly outline the main difficulties brought by migration, which are poverty, integration difficulties, uneven competition on the labour market and even criminality, but we must all work together to find solutions.

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

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I start by complimenting the rapporteur, and all those who have contributed to this excellent report. On behalf of the UEL, I pledge our support for its recommendations. Migrants now represent 8.7% of Europe’s population and that percentage will increase in the coming years. The report rightly states that migrants are all too often unfairly portrayed as being a burden on public finances and a threat to economic prosperity and social cohesion in host societies. That has led to an increasingly hostile environment in many countries.

      Accordingly, the main task of this report and the proposals it puts forward is to find ways to counter that unfriendly environment by giving the public at large information and evidence that shows that, generally speaking, migrants are not a burden but a benefit to society economically, culturally and socially. The report has concrete proposals for various fields, such as education, to facilitate integration and to create a welcoming environment. The report appeals to member States to tackle misconceptions about migrants and reminds us that they are a source of cultural enrichment as well as being so vital for large sectors of the economy. Many countries would face total collapse without them.

      Migrants are important for host countries, but what is their lot? Their life is often difficult and in many cases they suffer severe hardship, not least in the labour market, where they are often discriminated against and find themselves having to accept unacceptable jobs. We have to be very careful in how we phrase our reports and our recommendations. In that respect, I tabled an amendment to one part of the report, which the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has endorsed. Having said that, the report is informative, well balanced and rightly emphasises that integration is a two-way process that benefits migrants and receiving countries.

       I also pledge the UEL’s support for the paper on integration tests, and I thank the rapporteur for her valuable work. The paper is informative, thought provoking and of great quality. It gives the warning that any tests meant to facilitate integration, including language tests, might have the opposite effect and even prevent integration, sometimes hindering family reunification and causing resentment among migrants. We should take those warning signals seriously. It is important to get concrete proposals on this issue, such as those that the rapporteur and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons have presented to the Assembly, and I reiterate our support.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Guzenina-Richardson, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms GUZENINA-RICHARDSON (Finland) – I am happy to say on behalf of the Socialist Group that the rapporteur has done a good job. I stand in front of you as a descendant of migrants. My mother was born in Ulan-Ude in Russia and my father’s family roots are German. They overcame the obstacles and worked hard to provide a good living for our family, and I went on to become the Minister of Health and Social Services in Finland. Migrants, when they integrate into societies, can contribute and do well. The reports clearly point that out.

      Fears and prejudices can be tackled by facts. Facts can be statistics or the migrants’ stories, and I urge the media and the press to tell those stories. When migrants are given a face, a past, a present and a future, it encourages other migrants to work hard and to make their own way in the new society they have immigrated to. The media can play a huge role in that. As the report points out, migrants make a huge contribution to the labour market. Without those migrants, many European societies would wither.

      We cannot concentrate only on those immigrants who take on the jobs that other members of society refuse to take on; we also need to look to the future. Europe is facing a huge crisis. Not only is migration increasing, but we have austerity measures in many countries, which cut the measures that help migrants integrate into society. At the same time, the basis of welfare society is being cut. If children are not treated equally in schools, they do not get a proper education. Migrant children and the original children of these countries should receive an equal education, otherwise Europe is in trouble, and that serious problem needs to be addressed. If there is a lack of measures to help migrants integrate into our societies and to help natives to accept them as equals, the outcome will be unsustainable. We all need to address that challenge.

      Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain)* – Like the rest of our colleagues, I would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs on their excellent work.

      I want not only to speak on behalf of my parliamentary group, but to give you some information that I think significant. Spain is among the 10 countries with the highest number of immigrants: 6 million, according to a United Nations study. Our most recent studies have revealed that 80% of migrants are pleased to be in Spain. They are integrated, and like any other citizen of Spain, they have access to services such as health, education and social services. Some 68% have said that integration is a matter for the whole of society – both the host society and those who migrate.

      The report emphasises what the response of any society must be to migration. Migration brings us culture; it brings us integration. It also helps to change mentalities, which is significant for all countries in this Parliamentary Assembly; and it helps us to build a more just and serene society.

      I offer my congratulations to Ms Kyriakidou, and I think Ms Strik put her finger on the issue. Through such immigration, we witness poverty. We see people who have had to leave their country of origin to seek a new, better future; to educate their children; to try to integrate into the host society. Behind such people there is a human drama which we have frequently had to acknowledge. For example, in Lampedusa thousands of people have died, many of whose fate we never even learnt about.

      We need to appeal for a change not just in the way we think. In our reports, we need to value the importance of migration, but we also need to help countries in the south that receive migrants. We need to call on the European Union increasingly to help countries whose populations are leaving in search of a better world.

This is the major debate, and this is the voice of this Parliamentary Assembly: we need to acknowledge the importance of immigration to the countries of the Council of Europe, and of the integration of migrants. On the other hand, we need to talk about poverty and the human drama experienced by those who have to leave their countries in search of a better future.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – This report can be seen in relation to yesterday’s report on a strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe. If we follow the recommendations in today’s report – doing more to ensure that the benefits migrants can bring are maximised, and tackling the misconception of migrants as a burden on public finances – we could take a big step forward in preventing racism and intolerance. Lack of knowledge is often the main source of prejudice. Therefore, it is important, as the report recommends, that the authorities provide a fair and accurate portrayal of the positive impact of migrants on the economy.

      In Norway, as well as in other European countries, immigration is increasing. The financial crisis and European Union enlargement have made work the main reason for people to come to Norway. Lately, we have had a steady rise in new jobs, and 60% of the rise is due to immigrants. Migrant workers helped to sustain and prolong the period of economic growth Norway experienced before the financial crisis, and for the last two or three years they have contributed to increasing our production capacity and the restructuring of the Norwegian economy. It is also worth noting that in 2011, 21% of all entrepreneurs were immigrants, even though they constituted only 12% of the total population.

      On the other hand, unemployment is higher in some immigrant groups. If we manage to close this employment gap, immigrants could contribute more than one third of the increase in the work force that is required over a 50-year perspective. The figures speak for themselves. Migrants are a benefit to Norwegian society. With an improvement in integration measures and results, they could contribute even more. This is especially important in the context of asylum seekers and refugees. The Norwegian Parliament has unanimously authorised the Government to renegotiate the Dublin agreements in order to have a fairer distribution of asylum seekers among European countries.

      My last point is a positive one. Annual surveys show that the majority of the Norwegian population have a positive view of immigrants. Last December, seven out of 10 people agreed that immigrants enrich the cultural life of Norway. Some 86% agreed that immigrants should have the same work opportunities as Norwegians. Therefore, the overall picture is not entirely negative. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement.

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – Today’s report is welcome, and I say that as a migrant. I worked abroad for more than 20 years and I know what it means to leave for another country. I know about the personal doubts and fears that arise. They may be nebulous, but they are none the less real. To be accepted in another country – to live there, to build your life there – is never something that just happens simply and smoothly.

      I am concerned about what has been happening in recent years, years marked by economic difficulties in our countries. We have seen the emergence of deliberately hostile speech about migrants. They are presented as a burden on authorities, a threat to social cohesion, a danger to security. I was dismayed by what happened during the mandate of the previous President of my country, when a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity was established, as the one posed a threat to the other. Playing on fears for political purposes is something I find utterly contemptible. Xenophobia must be fought; it must not be maintained; and still less must it be nurtured.

      If we were to look at this differently and see immigration as an opportunity for all of us to be enriched – migrants and host countries – where would we be then? In fact, that is what you are doing in this report, madam rapporteur, and I congratulate you for it. The OECD and the European Commission have shown that immigration is not a drain on the public purse; nor is it a burden on national social security schemes.

      What would become of our economies without migrants? What about those sectors in which manpower is short? How many foreign markets would we miss out on without migrants and their intimate knowledge of the countries and regions from which they come? What would be the future of Europe, when ageing and population shrinkage are threatening our very future? What would become of Europe without migrants? What would become of creativity if we did not have ideas and art from different places coming together, because we had no more migrants? What would France, my country, be without the contributions of the Polish Marie Curie, the Spanish Pablo Picasso, the Italian Lino Ventura, or the Algerian Mohammed Dib?

      Freedom of movement and freedom of residence are at the very heart of what we are trying to do here in Europe. We live in open societies and open economies. Migration can be an opportunity when the rights and obligations of migrants are clearly specified and strictly respected. We must remove all barriers to employment. We must open access to our universities and our training institutions through a fair and effective visa policy. We must fight for diverse societies and against discrimination. We must be inspired by the work done by the institutions of the Council of Europe – the European Court of Human Rights, of course, but also the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. At local level, we must ensure that migrants are eligible to vote and are given voting rights. The history of Europe is one of migration, so if we look at migration as an opportunity, we are in step with the best of our history and the best of the European values that bring us together.

      Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – The issue of migration and migrants is one of the most debated in Europe, not only at official level but at the level of smaller communities, or in informal friendly discussions which, in many cases, induce disputes.

      There are two kinds of migration – legal and illegal – which should be treated separately. I come from a city situated in southern Hungary only 15 km from the Serbian border, which is also the border of the European Union. Since the Syrian conflict began, the number of illegal immigrants has increased dramatically. These people often become victims of human traffickers. The Serbian and Hungarian authorities try to manage and control the situation, which is not at all easy. Those who are retained by the authorities are taken into camps operated according to European regulations. Some of the illegal immigrants have contagious diseases, but even so, often after staying for only a short period, they run away, without any treatment, towards western Europe.

      We should also speak about immigration inside Europe. This mostly goes from east to west due to the better salaries that western countries can offer. This has led to difficult situations in eastern European countries, because today there is a lack of professionals in some fields. After being educated and trained free of charge in their homeland, these people perform their professions and contribute value in western societies. The lack of highly educated professionals – for instance, in Hungary, doctors – has become a major problem in some central and east European countries.

      The report states that in the period until 2050, 40 million or 50 million immigrants should be accepted in order to operate the European economy and institutions. That equates to about 10% of the population of the European Union. We all know that our demographic trends are catastrophic. In order to change this, we should turn back to our classical and basic values, which come from Christianity. The role and status of families and the appreciation of motherhood should be strengthened – first, morally, and then economically. Immigrants are needed in Europe to fill the gap caused by European citizens who will not have children. Because we cannot avoid this massive immigration, European society should be prepared for the new situation and for receiving the immigrants. In this sense, the resolution adopted yesterday on the strategy against racism and intolerance is essential. It is certain that Europe will change greatly, and this will influence our culture, habits and way of life. The spoken languages in Europe may change. We should all be aware that this is the price of maintaining European welfare and economic power.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I warmly commend the words of my colleague, Mr Brian Binley, in trying to inject an element of reason, frankly, into this debate. Of course the report is fine as far as it goes. How can we be against migrants, given that everybody in this Chamber, ultimately, is descended from migrants? My own parents had to flee France in June 1940; they were migrants. My wife’s family had to flee Russia; they were migrants. We all have similar stories. We all know that migrants add to cultural diversity and inject new vigour into societies. Migrants always have been essential and always will be.

      However, the problem with a report like this is that it is not balanced. Although we all accept that migrants do a lot of good for society, everybody in this Chamber, in reality, knows that we support balanced migration. We cannot have open-ended migration. The report makes no mention of the dangers to community cohesion and the pressures on infrastructure – doctors, schools or anything else. Migration has to be balanced. When Poland joined the European Union, the United Kingdom was one of the only countries to admit Polish people, and they have been a tremendous benefit to our society. According to official figures, there may be 600 000 Polish people living in our country. If one questions the sheer number of east Europeans coming into Britain, one cannot be accused of being racist, because they are exactly like us. They work hard, and many of them will go back. They will raise families and in a generation they will be indistinguishable from British people. However, the fact is that in many parts of Britain, particularly on the east coast, there has been enormous pressure on services – schools, doctors and all the rest of it. We have to recognise that. It is not racist to say that we believe in balanced migration; it is simply sensible.

      Although I welcome the report, I just wish that it had made more reference to the importance of arranging migration in an ordered and sensible way so that we play our part in helping poorer countries around the world, but do not put our own services under undue strain. Nor must we ignore the legitimate concerns of our own people. If we in the centre-right and centre-left parties do that, we will encourage extremism and extremist parties. We need to have a balanced debate, and that is why I support the comments of my friend, Mr Brian Binley.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – In my view, we need more reports like the one that Ms Kyriakidou is presenting to us today. All too often, migrants are presented in a negative light, and I encourage us all to devote more energy to the opportunities offered by migration. Our civilisation has been built as a result of migration. I wonder what the USA would look like today without the millions of migrants who helped to build it into a modern democracy.

      Europe would not exist without the diversity of people contributing to its creation. This process continues today. Instead of abusing migrants for stealing our jobs, we must acknowledge that many of them carry the weight of our societies by taking on essential jobs that we do not want to do. Without their efforts, we would have to work in dirty offices and live without public transport, and our crops would rot in the fields. Many services that are essential for us to prosper are taken care of by migrants. The report suggests that in the Nordic countries migrants set up more new businesses than the traditional population. Still it seems that as a migrant you have to work at least twice as hard in order to prove that you are a true member of society. I wonder at what point one loses the stigma of being a migrant.

      Parliamentarians play a crucial role in making sure that migrants are portrayed in a fair and objective way. The European elections are approaching, and I hope that we can have a campaign that focuses on the real issues such as tackling the economic crisis and promoting growth rather than unfairly stigmatising certain groups. The media have a special responsibility for going beyond populist statements and engaging in balanced reporting.

      Ms Kyriakidou’s report quotes a Swiss representative saying that for every Swiss franc invested in integration, there is a threefold payback in the long term. This is a very important point. However, integration is not only the responsibility of the migrant: it is a two-way process. If we want migrants to integrate into our societies, we must ensure that they have the same opportunities to access work, education and other public activities as the traditional population. Let us be honest: Europe cannot afford to turn its back on migrants so let us start looking at the positives as a way of overcoming the negatives.

      Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – Dear colleagues, 2014 is a very important year for the reaffirmation of democratic principles. The European elections will update the map of European Union citizens’ political preferences. These elections, as well as national political races that are expected in 2014, already appear to be marked by publicity about a topic related to migration and labour: the lifting of restrictions regarding access to the European Union labour market for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens.

      There is no need to tell you that, as a Romanian citizen and a politician, I follow these debates closely. I am deeply worried by the discriminatory and offensive discourse that we witness on a daily basis, propagated by politicians who seem to disregard, for short-sighted purposes of electoral gains, the principles of equal opportunities, non-discrimination, freedom of movement and so on. For a couple of years now, the issues of migration and free movement of labour have been increasingly politicised, fuelling hate speech and intolerance. The discourse of some British journals at the beginning of this year, targeting labourers from Romania and Bulgaria with the argument that they might be an unbearable burden on Britain’s social services, and therefore unwelcome guests, is an example of what honest and responsible media should never do. We know, after the tragedies of the 20th century, that spreading fear, mistrust and, in the end, xenophobia undermines fundamental rights and democracy – the very values that we stand for. I shall not highlight the names of politicians or media outlets which had a negative public attitude to migration, yet I wish to commend the public campaign initiated by The Guardian, “What is Romania like? Share your experiences”.

      Today’s report is not about freedom of movement in the European Union, nor specifically about Romania or Bulgaria, yet the case I brought to your attention illustrates all the difficulties highlighted by the rapporteur, whom I warmly congratulate on her work. All the unfounded fears about migrants were resurrected against Romanians and Bulgarians in the wake of their gaining access to the labour market in European Union countries. As a Romanian citizen, politician and member of this Assembly, I ask you all to make common cause and motivate everyone in your national parliaments in order to show greater responsibility to all European citizens and to respect their rights and freedoms, regardless of their race, ethnicity, nationality or sex; to discourage xenophobic and intolerant speech towards migrants; and actively to combat stereotypes that were long ago proven wrong.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I rise to express my appreciation for the report presented by Athina Kyriakidou because it deals with a fundamental aspect of integration policy: the need to tackle misconceptions about immigrants.

      One of the most deep-rooted prejudices is that the presence of migrants in a society in Europe is somehow a disadvantage, economically and socially. The report is right to criticise the use of these arguments by people who are in public office and who have access to official figures. In upholding these fundamental rights, however, we must have a clear legal and ethical framework. It is clear that upholding the fundamental rights of individuals cannot be based on how socially useful they are. I am saying this in the Council of Europe, which upholds the rights of all persons irrespective of where they come from. In the history of our institution and of our civilisation, the rights of individuals have come about through a universalist approach, which is based not on the use to a society of an individual but on the dignity of every individual, irrespective of the contribution he or she makes to the group they live in.

      It is true that the failure to recognise human dignity in the most vulnerable people is fed by utilitarian approaches and we must therefore combat these prejudices, which increase hostility in society. One prejudice is linked to the fact that the presence of immigrants is considered to be an economic and social burden – they are considered parasites. In fact, the figures suggest the opposite not only from a demographic point of view but economically and socially. My country is seized by the idea that immigrants are a burden on the welfare State but in fact the opposite is true, because the welfare State could not be upheld without immigrants and their economic contribution. In 2011 the Italian State spent €11.9 billion on integration policies and received €13.3 billion from pension contributions, national insurance and taxes paid by immigrants, thus gaining €1.4 billion. We cannot talk about any unfairness here. On the contrary, we should raise the issue of these people being able to retrieve the pension contributions they made if they decide to go home before they can draw their pensions.

      In conclusion, the real challenge is to increase access to legal employment so that we can build a society based on mutual recognition and respect that we all want to live in.

      Mr CHAOUKI (Italy)* – My thanks to our two colleagues for these two reports and the draft resolution, which sets out the complex nature of migration over the past few years. On the one hand, we are familiar with the significant contribution of migration to the economy and the survival, if not growth, of our countries, but on the other hand clearly in many cases it is difficult to explain this contribution to the population as a whole. Hence there is the issue of revenue, which has been explained only in ideological terms. This has been picked up in the draft resolution. We need balance. We need to ensure that language becomes an important vehicle for integration, but at the same time these tests must not form an unequal obstacle for the immigrant communities in our countries.

      It is important to acknowledge that the coexistence of our multicultural societies is not always easy. That affects not only migrants but the native communities themselves. We must have incentives to encourage migrants to learn the language of their host communities, rather than having tests that can be misused. For example, in some Italian cities, a certain percentage of migrants never pass the test, while in other cities a much smaller percentage does. We need to remember that when assessing the results of the language tests, particularly if they are decisive in respect of citizenship or residence rights.

      It is particularly important that women should learn languages, particularly in communities where such opportunities are limited. It is part of the resolution to guarantee that such courses be free of charge and we must guarantee free access to the tests. We should have the courage to promote a realistic approach; we need to think about the wealth that we receive through other languages and countries. We often see that only later, with the third or fourth generations of migrants. The economy of Europe can also become an ambassador for the benefits of such migration.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I congratulate the authors of the reports, which reflect the complex nature of immigration in Europe. I speak as a senator who has worked in the sector for more than 15 years, and I have become well acquainted with the communities. In most countries, immigrants are more likely to pay taxes and sustain member States’ GDPs. They are perceived in two different ways. If they do the dirtiest jobs that no one else wants, they are lauded, but during election campaigns they are seen as a burden.

      Earlier, a colleague said that policies must take into account the views of voters and that a majority of voters have a gut reaction against migrants. That last point is wrong; in my experience, the opinion of the majority of the public tends to be manufactured by politicians and the media. When I talk to dignitaries in various countries I am told positive things about migrants – that they are hard working and so on. But that all disappears during election campaigns.

      We have to take into account everything in the report. In my and other countries, authorities monitor the mass media. It seems wrong that in reports of crime the media specify national origin – the person is a criminal. If nationality is specified in reports on crime, we will turn people against immigrants.

      Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – I am aware that Ms Kyriakidou’s report could be interpreted as romantic, or at least biased. However, it is built on arguments and we need more such reports because 8.7% of the population of Europe is made up of migrants. In Europe, there can be hate speech and hate crimes against migrants. In this Organisation, we strive to deploy strategies against racism and intolerance, and we are all aware that migrants are often unfairly portrayed as a burden on public finances and the cause of instability.

      Without repeating the benefits that migrants can bring, I should say that the proposed title in the motion for the resolution was different initially; it questioned whether migrants were a benefit or a burden on European States. We looked into the arguments and agreed to remove the question mark, as it became clear that our societies can benefit a lot if there is successful integration. One colleague said that he advocated balanced immigration. I agree, but we have to apply successful models. Ms Strik’s report is much more technical, rather than being romantic, but it clearly shows that language tests can be successful if applied properly. It is just one tool and measure and if we apply more of those, our societies will flourish with the benefits of migration.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – On behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, I thank all those who have spoken about the two reports and the two rapporteurs for an excellent job. It goes without saying that integration is the crux of the issue and that integration tests are no kind of migration management mechanism. I was a rapporteur on the legislation that allowed us to establish a clear integration pathway in my country, France. Knowledge of a language is a sine qua non for effective integration. It is particularly important for women immigrants, as it allows them to follow their child’s progress at school and to become more independent. The main purpose of tests is to help migrants to integrate into the host society better.

      On the report of Ms Kyriakidou, we cannot leave it at that. We have to continue to think further on this matter. This is a real problem for us and it is now up to us to change mindsets and to counter the hackneyed views advocated by some politicians and some sections of the media. We still have some way to go.

      Mr SELVİ (Turkey.) – We are discussing an important issue. There are large Turkish communities living in many European countries. Therefore, as a Turkish parliamentarian, I have read both reports with great interest. First, I would like to touch upon the excellent work by Ms Strik. The explanatory memorandum gives almost a complete picture of the situation and thus it is very informative indeed.

      I think we are unanimous in agreeing the necessity and significance of learning the language of the country of residence. Language is the key for successful integration. It is not obvious however that integration tests, especially the pre-entry ones, help integration. In fact the very existence of pre-entry requirements is legally questionable.

      In the explanatory report, a reference is made to the Turkey-EEC association law. Indeed, that includes the so-called “stand-still clause” and integration tests are against European Union law. The Netherlands was again the first country to give up pre-entry tests. I expect the same initiative from Germany. Moreover, integration tests clearly risk violating two paramount legal documents of the Council of Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and the European social charter.

      The report entitled “Migrants: ensuring they are a benefit for European host societies” includes many illuminating facts and rather brave statements on migration, which, in this age of relative intolerance and the rise of populism, are not common, so I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Kyriakidou.

      It is useful to know that, generally, migrants contribute more than they take from the social system. This is especially true in the case of the so-called first generation, as they tend to work for a shorter period and retire earlier, thus taking considerably lower retirement benefits and salaries.

      I am fully aware of the political sensitivity of this issue in many countries. Extreme-right and populist circles are more than happy to abuse any negative media report relating to an immigrant. Many politicians deem it necessary from time to time to climb on a soapbox and make anti-immigration remarks to soothe or woo their constituencies.

      Efforts should be intensified to make sure that we are successful in our integration policies, which will in turn pay off both for the immigrants and the host countries. Thank you for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT – As Mr Chikovani is not present, I call Mr Pâslaru.

      Mr PÂSLARU (Romania.)* – Based on the fundamental principles of the European Union, provided for in the Treaty, one cannot talk about migration in the European Union as nationals of member States enjoy freedom of movement and residence in the territory of the European Union, as well as the right to work in any job in these States. Thus, one can only speak of migration of citizens who come from non-European Union member States.

      Migration of the labour force represents both an opportunity for Europe and a challenge. The effects of migration in Europe are complex, as there are both economic and demographic aspects. In the coming years, the phenomenon of migration will have an ever-growing role, producing cultural, economic and financial, and social and cultural effects, many of which are positive. Taking in migrants, who are an economic benefit to countries, is an ongoing concern for the European area.

      To manage the phenomenon of migration more effectively, we need Europe-wide integration policies for migrants. Romania will continue to defend the fundamental principles of the European Union and will continue to ensure control of the migration of people from outside the European Union.

      I thank Ms Kyriakidou for her excellent report.

      Mr CHISU (Observer from Canada.) – I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this Assembly once again on the topic of migration.

      Perhaps because of our largely positive experience with immigration and our success with multiculturalism in Canada, the question whether migrants are a net burden or benefit is not a mainstream debate there. Canadian society is generally of the view that immigration is good for the country in economic and social terms, and the majority of Canadians want to maintain current levels of approximately 250 000 new immigrants per year.

      It is widely accepted that immigration is important for addressing skill shortages and our ageing population. However, immigration not only supports a country’s economy, it enriches its culture and strengthens its social fabric.

      There is also a humanitarian motive, which is of no lesser importance, behind a policy of openness to immigrants. It is important that our countries welcome refugees searching to escape persecution, and permit families to reunite. That is the right thing to do, even if it creates some burden in the short term. Immigrants, whether arriving as regular migrants, refugees or under the family reunification programme, become contributing members of our societies. This has been the overwhelming experience in Canada.

      The draft resolution before you emphasises that integration is critical to maximising the benefits of immigration. Indeed, the evidence shows a clear connection between factors such as in-demand employment skills and host-country language competency and successful integration, including a positive impact on immigrants’ sense of belonging.

      In Canada, our expectation of permanent residents is that they maintain their status through residency in Canada and lawful conduct. Then they are encouraged to apply for citizenship. Indeed, the percentage of newcomers who obtain Canadian citizenship is very high, at 86% in 2011.

      Applicants for citizenship must demonstrate adequate official language ability and knowledge of Canada. Supports are in place, such as free language instruction and the option of meeting with a citizenship judge after twice failing the citizenship test, to help newcomers succeed at these measures.

      With more than 200 home languages reported in our last national census, diversity is a fact of life in Canada. It is also a tremendous benefit to our country, and it is one that we try to support and enhance through our policies and everyday interactions.

      The evidence is clear: whether selected on the basis of skill, family ties to Canada, or the need for protection, immigrants have shown they have the capacity to contribute economically and socially, and thus to become active citizens. It is important that we remind ourselves of the positive aspects of immigration, and I am thankful that the Assembly has allowed us to engage in this important discussion.

      MR FABRITIUS (Germany)* – I, and probably most of us present, can agree with the basic ideas behind this draft resolution: the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must loudly and determinedly combat any form of discrimination or xenophobia and or playing with fear against all that is foreign. We must therefore work to increase acceptance of migration and reduce prejudice through implementing the right measures. The draft resolution substantially achieves this goal.

      I think we all agree that freedom of migration and the ability to migrate are wonderful achievements here in Europe, but we need to acknowledge that, as well as the undisputed advantages of migration, problems and abuse also ensue. Passing over these in silence or failing to act against the potential for abuse diminishes the acceptance of migration, and unfortunately this aspect receives too little attention. Awareness of the problem and potential solutions are apparent at different European and national levels. Last November, the European Commission submitted a five-point plan to work against the abuse of the freedom of movement. The Greek European Union Council presidency of 2014 would like to set a priority on migration, borders and mobility.

      Just a few weeks ago, in Germany, a committee at State secretary level was set up in the Ministry of Labour to deal exclusively with the problem of migration for the sole purpose of drawing social benefits. None of that would happen were the noble value of migration not endangered through abuse. Thus, national and European Union-wide provisions are necessary.

      When the coalition government was formed in Germany between the Christian Democratic Union, the Christian Social Union and the Social Democrats, the coalition agreement declared that we want to maintain freedom of movement. Hence we will combat the unjustified use of social benefits by European Union citizens. Action against potential abuse is sometimes seen as scepticism about freedom of movement in the European Union, but the opposite is true. A smaller potential for abuse could lead to greater acceptance, so combating abuse means being pro-European.

      One substantial issue has attracted too little attention. Paragraph 5 of the report talks about an honest assessment of migration, which involves looking not just at the benefit to the host society, but at the advantages and disadvantages to migrants’ countries of origin. We need to give countries of origin some homework to do to counter excessive incentives to migrate. We cannot simply look at countries of origin as potential labour reservoirs. We must look at the issue as part of an overall picture. All that must be part of the avowed honest assessment.

      THE PRESIDENT – Ms Seara and Mr Jakavonis are not here. I call Ms Guţu.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – I will start by congratulating the two rapporteurs, Ms Kyriakidou and Ms Strik, on the two reports that we are discussing jointly today.

      I want to address the question of pax socialis – social peace. Linguistic skills are important to ensure peace in society. In countries where many languages rub alongside each other, there are many different ethnic communities as well.

      The spirit and the values of the Council of Europe inspire us to uphold the rights of migrants, and the draft resolution and draft recommendation are clear on that. Host countries must avoid any discrimination, including in language use. Tests for citizenship should not be the only criterion, and the bar should not be set too high. There should be a single system across the whole of Europe.

      I want to return to the question of languages, which can lead to intolerance and even rejection of the official language of a country by third or fourth-generation migrants. That can happen in former Soviet Union countries; my country is an example of this. The Moldovan Republic is an emerging democracy, which had the misfortune of being under the Soviet yoke. Identity and language are still being exploited for political purposes.

      The name given to our official language has generated hate speech and xenophobia among third and fourth-generation migrants. A ruling by the constitutional court of Moldova on 5 December last year, as a response to my challenge regarding the name of our language, constitutionalised the 1991 declaration of independence of the Republic of Moldova, which described our language as Romanian. Romanian is, of course, the official language of Romania as well. In the secessionist area of Transnistria, that would run counter to people’s rights, because people are not allowed to learn their mother tongue without being oppressed by the authorities in the secessionist zone.

      I will, of course, support the draft resolution and draft recommendation before us. We should also think about the recommendation that was adopted by our Assembly in 2011 as part of the report by the Group of Eminent Persons, entitled “Living Together”. We must ensure that all communities in a multicultural society get along and display tolerance and acceptance.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms El Ouafi from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco)* – I commend both rapporteurs on an excellent job. I want to share a few of my ideas on the reports.

      First, migration has never been just about figures or money; migration is about something different – it is political, social, cultural and commercial, and only then economic. Migration can enrich European society, but for that to happen, we need to make an effort to promote the concept of multicultural societies. If we do that, we will see the true worth of migration and see that it can add to the wealth of our diversity. We need to have appropriate programmes that reflect our belief in that.

      I myself have worked on this topic, because I was an immigrant to Italy for many years. It is clear that we have not done enough to change education systems, despite the fact that we know how essential education is in introducing the kind of societies we want to see. We are still not doing enough, and people seen as being different are still seen as a threat. We must combat that.

      Some 6 million Moroccans live aboard, 80% of them in Europe. We are trying to run cultural co-operation projects with partner countries, reflecting migration as a source of cultural and other enrichment.

      Secondly, we must make people aware of what diversity can be. We must see that it is a way of bringing human beings together. We must see people first and foremost as human beings. All forms of discrimination against people on the basis of their identity are totally out of place. Discrimination sometimes continues among second and third-generation immigrants. Europe is able to, and must manage matters better to ensure that we recognise the reality of our multicultural societies.

      Here, the issue of Islam comes to the fore. Islam exists in Europe, and we must not have a tit-for-tat between the advocates and the opponents of Islam. That does not get us anywhere. We must work together to combat the racist and xenophobic campaigns that sadly still exist in Europe and are becoming more widespread. Such campaigns ignore the history and the involvement of Islam in the formation of the European identity. It is not just Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian; Islam is part of Europe’s history. Now, as people are being held up at the borders of Europe and turned back supposedly because they are some kind of security risk, we are denying the reality of our history.

      Thirdly, racism and discrimination must be fought at all levels. We must fight them with all the weapons at our disposal. That includes co-operating with origin countries – certainly with Morocco – so that we can put our words into action.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Yatim, from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – Several of the immigration policies that aim to tighten Europe’s borders are based on arguments that do not stand up to scientific rigour. Most of them are based on the crisis affecting Europe, while others are based simply on political arguments that try to woo voters from the extreme right.

      The report encourages us to think more about the academic approach. We need to think about the integration – economic and otherwise – of migrants, but attempts are being made to destabilise the situation. All of the arguments in favour of the report show that immigration is a solution, not a problem. Scientific studies highlight the benefits to host countries of migratory flows and show how democracy and social protection and pension systems will remain sustainable. We need migration in order to maintain a young, active population, so migrants play a decisive role in economic growth.

      The benefits of migration are not just economic. It has a scientific, biological aspect and can lead to mixed marriage. We should also bear in mind the cultural wealth generated by migrants. Migration also allows us to convey different messages and to build more bridges between civilisations and cultures, and it offers greater opportunities for understanding and peace throughout the world.

      In conclusion, Morocco is still facing up to the challenges of development. It was a source country of migration for a long time, but it has now become a transit country for migrants from other African countries and is the target of the protectionist policies adopted by European countries. Our country has opted for a very advanced migratory policy, based on three pillars: the first is political and objective, the second represents a comprehensive approach and the third respects human rights. The policy focuses on the integration of migrants for one simple reason: we have always defended the integration of our migrants in Europe and we must defend the fact that migration is a bonus, not a problem. We congratulate the two rapporteurs.

      THE PRESIDENT – The last speaker is Mr Ameur, but he is not here.

      That concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Ms Strik, rapporteur, to reply. You have five minutes.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I thank colleagues for their support for the principles of both reports. I am glad that so many spoke of their own experiences, which suggests that our reports are based on reality and facts. We have tried to achieve a balance, which represents a big difference from the rhetorical statements made about migrants in many of the debates in our countries.

      I accept Ms Gorghiu’s observation. The resistance in my country to the free movement of eastern European nationals is huge and the debate is negative, not rational. Unfortunately, politicians fuel that resistance and uneasiness. As Mr Fabritius has said, a coalition of member States has pleaded for a change to the rules of free movement, but Commissioner Reding has said that their stance is not based on facts. Of course, abuse always has to be tackled, but we all benefit from free movement and the internal market.

      I was relieved about the general tone of the debate and the nuanced, balanced and supportive positions taken by colleagues. I wish such debates took place more often in my home country. I think that most of us agree that, if migrants started from a position of strength – with the ability to take part in politics, to access the labour market and to bring their family with them – it would be much easier for them to integrate and contribute to our society. That points to the relationship between the two reports. A parliament serves all parts of society, so it is essential for migrants to have easy access to a strong status or nationality. They might then become voters, which could influence the discussion among politicians, because they might then want to win the support of migrants.

      I agree with Ms Virolainen that immigrants often have to prove themselves twice as much as citizens. That point is also relevant to yesterday’s debate on combating racism, to which Ms Christoffersen referred. To be excluded, hated or not taken seriously makes it impossible for immigrants to feel that they belong in the member State.

      I compliment most of all Ms Kyriakidou, because her report is courageous and she prompted this positive debate. We hope we will be able to do more on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. My report was more technical, as has been said, but I stress that it also serves as a warning, because the consequences of the wrong use of an integration test – through, for example, connecting an integration level to resident status – would be a very negative effect on integration. It would impede the rights of migrants and leave them in a weak position.

The report is technical, but substantial. I wanted to write it, because integration tests are developing rapidly without any consideration of their consequences. Our chair, Mr Mariani, has mentioned the position of France, which the report notes as a good example. It uses the integration test, but if someone fails, that does not mean that he or she will not be allowed to enter France. Instead, they will be allowed to enter and then attend integration courses. That is different from refusing someone entry because they have not passed a test.

      Let us learn from each other, look at best practices and ask what kind of policy really promotes integration, because that is what we all want.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Kyriakidou, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.

      Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – I thank colleagues for their positive contributions and their support. I want to say from the outset that Ms Mulić is right: the initial intention was to check whether society benefits from migrants or whether they are a burden on it. The report found that migration is positive, which is why we changed its title and concentrated on the benefits that migrants bring to societies.

      Our British colleagues are not present, but I remind colleagues of how the British economy has taken advantage of the mobility of European and non-European students. For example, before Cyprus’s accession to Europe in 2004, our students were accepted as third country students in England. I have three children and they all study in England, and it cost me £60 000 to pay for my oldest child’s three-year course. So there is a positive economic effect for the country that receives these students, although the tuition fees in the rest of Europe are much lower, as I know from having studied in France.

      I also wish to thank Mr Jónasson for saying that education is the key to integration and for his positive amendment, which has been accepted. I agree with Ms Christoffersen that improving the integration programmes will contribute positively to the growth of the Norwegian economy, and that is a good example for all other European countries to follow. Investment in integration is paid back three times, as Ms Virolainen said, and that, too, provides a good example for all of us. As Mr Kalmár said, illegal migrants can be victims of human trafficking and we have to take that issue seriously, even though we cannot count the number of illegal migrants – we have only estimates.

      I wish to finish by saying that we are politicians, so let us lead the public discussions in our countries and not follow them. Let us be opinion leaders and try to enable our people to understand what is the reality for all of us.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kyriakidou. Despite the fact that you have already spoken, Mr Mariani, I need to know whether you would like to speak once more in your capacity as the chair of the committee.

      Mr Mariani (France)* – When I spoke earlier, I did so as the chairperson of the committee – obviously, I made that statement at the wrong time.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      We will now consider the draft resolution presented in respect of the first report, “Migrants: ensuring they are a benefit for European host societies” to which three amendments have been tabled. They will be taken the order they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that there is a 30 second limit on speeches.

       I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so Mr Mariani?

Mr MARIANI (France) – Yes.

The PRESIDENT – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      The following amendments have been adopted.

      Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Jónasson, Mr Gür, Mr Valen, Mr Villumsen, Ms Groth, Ms Dourou, Mr Loukaides, Mr Papadimoulis and Mr Hunko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, first sentence, replace the words “, and accepting” with the following text:

      “They find themselves in a position of having to accept”.Am

      Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Virolainen, Ms Groth, Ms Reps and Mr Gunnarsson, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.2.4, insert the following paragraph:

      “promoting the diversity advantage resulting from migration and integration, considering migrants as a resource for local economic, social and cultural development, and not only as vulnerable groups in need of welfare support and services, or a threat to social cohesion;”.Am

      Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Virolainen, Ms Groth, Ms Reps and Mr Gunnarsson, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 10.3, insert the following paragraph:

      “recognising that integration for the most part takes place at the local level, make use of the experience of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and the Council of Europe’s Intercultural cities programme and its Intercultural cities INDEX;”We

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13367, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We will now consider the draft resolution and the draft recommendation presented in respect of the second report, “Integration tests: helping or hindering integration?”. No amendments have been tabled to the draft resolution contained in Document 13361.

      We will therefore proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13361.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13361. A two-thirds majority is required, counting all the affirmative and negative votes. No amendments have been tabled to the draft recommendation.

      The vote is open.

4. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. with the Agenda which was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed

(The sitting was closed at 7.35 p.m.).

CONTENTS

1. Membership of committees

2. Syrian refugees: how to organize and support international assistance?

Presentation by Mr Bockel of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13372

Presentation by Mr Dişli of the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13403

Statement by Mr Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commission for Human Rights

Speakers: Ms Virolainen, Mr Morozov, Ms Lundgren, Mr Gür, Ms Strik, Ms Osborne, Mr Pfister, Ms Durrieu, Mr Fournier, Mr Shlegel, Mr Hancock, Ms Mattila, Mr Michel, Mr Sasi, Mr Schennach, Mr Chaouki, Mr Mignon, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Ambler, Ms Schou, Mr Rouquet, Ms Johnsen, Sir Edward Leigh, Ms Mulić, Mr Triantafyllos, Mr Sanella,Mr Yatim

Replies: Mr Muižnieks, Mr Bockel

Amendments 1, 6, 4, 3, 2, as amended, and 5, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13372, as amended, adopted

3. Joint debate:

Migrants: ensuring they are a benefit for European host societies

Presentation by Ms Kyriakidou of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13367

Integration tests: helping or hindering integration?

Presentation by Ms Strick of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13361

Speakers:Mr Binley, Mr Stroe, Mr Jónasson, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Kalmár, Sir Edward Leigh, Ms Virolainen, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Nicoletti, Mr Chaouki, Mr BW, Ms Mulić, Mr Mariani, Mr Selvi, Mr Chikovani, Mr Pâslaru, Mr Chisu, Mr Fabritus, Ms Gutu, Ms el Ouafi, Mr Yatim

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 13367, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13361 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13361 adopted

4. Next public business

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk

Pedro AGRAMUNT*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT/ Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI/ Khalid Chaouki

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO

Jonny CROSIO

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/Fatma Pehlivan

Reha DENEMEÇ*

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA*

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN/Michael Connarty

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*

Damian DRĂGHICI

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY/Sabine Vermeulen

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/Sir Edward Leigh

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Alexander Romanovich

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF/Tineke Strik

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Elżbieta Radziszewska

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL/Ester Tuiksoo

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Olga Kazakova

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Jussi Halla-Aho

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Zbigniew Girzyński

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Anvar Makhmutov

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR/André Reichardt

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Ana Birchall

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Robert Shlegel

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE/Carmen Quintanilla

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Gerhard Pfister

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Dana VÁHALOVÁ*

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM*

Jordi XUCLÀ

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Vassiliy Likhachev

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Observers

Stella AMBLER

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

Michel RIVARD

Partners for Democracy

Azzam AL-AHMAD

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA

Bassam SALHI

Mohamed YATIM