AA14CR21

AS (2014) CR 21

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-first sitting

Tuesday 24 June at 10 a.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 10.05 a.m.)

The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Election of Secretary General of the Council of Europe

The PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe by secret ballot.

The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 13525. The candidates are Mr Thorbjørn Jagland and Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. A summary of the arrangements governing the election was printed in the Organisation of Debates today.

The election will be held in the area behind the President’s chair. The poll will be suspended from

1 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. At 5 p.m. the poll will be closed. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers, whom we must now proceed to choose by lot.

I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

The names of Ms Oehri and Dame Angela Watkinson have been drawn. They should go to the area behind the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

I expect to announce the results of the election here in the Assembly Chamber during this afternoon’s sitting, immediately after the end of the debate on “Violence in and through the media”, which is likely to be between 6 and 6.30 p.m.

I now declare the ballot open.

2. Joint debate: The ‘left-to-die boat’: actions and reactions and The large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows on Italian shores

The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. The first is titled “The ‘left-to-die boat’: actions and reactions”, Document 13532, presented by Ms Strik; the second is titled “The large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows on Italian shores”, Document 13531, presented by Mr Chope.

May I remind the Assembly that at yesterday morning’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates this morning be limited to three minutes?

In order to finish by 12 noon we must interrupt the list of speakers at around 11.15 a.m. to allow time for replies and votes.

I call Ms Strik, 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 STRIK (Netherlands) – “We have an emergency, we have an emergency; help, help, be quick, be quick.”

      Two years ago, in April 2012, we discussed the fate of 63 boat migrants who died a painful death in the Mediterranean Sea because no one was prepared to save them. Their boat drifted for 15 days and passed numerous vessels. People in a helicopter threw some bottles of water to them but did not return. One big military vessel came very close. The people on board saw the dead bodies and heard the survivors’ cries for help, but they kept silent and sailed away.

      I have tried to find answers on that blemish on Europe. Why did everyone leave those people to die when there were so many moments when they could have been saved? I concluded that there was not one actor that failed but many – NATO, allied partners with their ships in the vicinity, coastal States and fishermen. I tried to get clarity about which States the helicopter and the military vessel belonged to, as leaving people to die cannot be left unpunished. In the follow-up report that we are discussing today, I have had to conclude that I did not get the replies that would help me reveal the responsible actors.

The member States involved not only failed to stage a rescue, but failed to co-operate in finding the truth. I therefore urge them again to provide me with the relevant information on their location and I urge you, as parliamentarians, to press your governments to provide information on the location of the vessels, the communication equipment on board, satellite imagery, and so on. It is hard to believe that in these times of technology, there would be no evidence about the track taken by and the fate of this boat. I also do not believe that no State received the message that the Italians sent out every four hours.

      In the report on the “left-to-die boat”, I also made a number of recommendations on how to avoid such a loss of lives in the future. Looking back on what has happened since then, we have to conclude that many more people have died in the Mediterranean Sea, many of them by drowning.

That does not mean that nothing has happened in the meantime. Italy has abolished the legislation that punished people who rescue migrants, which is an important step. Other member States should follow that example. There is a regulation on external sea borders for Frontex operations, with clear agreements on the definition of distress, on who will go to the rescue and on who will allow for disembarkation. Importantly for refugees, migrants can be sent back to a third country only if an investigation shows that that is safe. However, those common standards apply only to Frontex co-ordinated actions. I urge all States to apply exactly the same common standards in other actions as well and to co-operate regionally.

If we want to avoid the southern member States trying to shift the responsibility to neighbours, we should make sure that rescuing does not mean being responsible for an asylum claim. The Dublin Regulation is blocking European solidarity. As long as the Dublin Regulation is unamended, the European Union should at least take common responsibility for asylum requests from those rescued in the Mediterranean, followed by taking an equal share. For the sake of safety, the link between rescuing and taking responsibility for the follow-up should be deleted.

More has happened since the adoption of my report. After the tragedies near Lampedusa last October in which hundreds of people lost their lives, the European Union installed a task force for the Mediterranean with the mandate to come up with solutions. The task force puts a strong focus on co-operation with the transit countries to stop migrants travelling on to Europe. The problem is that that co-operation motivates transit countries to fence their national borders without improving migrants’ human rights, such as access to an asylum procedure, basic social rights or even human dignity. Migrants who get stuck in the transit countries are often given a hard time and risk their lives. This co-operation has increased the vulnerability of refugees who do not have permission to travel to Europe and the danger of the routes they follow. In my report, I recommend that the human rights standards in these transit countries should be raised to a sufficient level before co-operation with third countries can be effected. The European Union cannot pass the buck to its neighbours without taking responsibility for the protection levels involved.

The task force also came up with a more innovative solution, creating the so-called protected entries, which enable refugees to travel safely to Europe. In my report, I ask you to support this proposal fully as it would fill the most crucial gap in the protection system. We have European protection standards, but you first have to reach European territory to enjoy them. Right now, it is simply not possible for refugees to travel safely to Europe. Visas for protection purposes are not issued and resettling refugees via the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is too limited in scale.

Syrian refugees cannot find protection any more in Lebanon as the refugee population is equal to a quarter of its own population. Eritrean refugees are not safe from their soldiers in the camps of Sudan. Those people are left with no choice other than to trust their fate to smugglers, for whom a safe journey is the last priority. Is it not cynical that we force refugees to risk their lives before we are prepared to offer them a safe haven? And is it not cynical that States declare war on smugglers, while creating a market for them by making refugees dependent on them? Protected entries mean legal channels for refugees, such as humanitarian visas or invitations for resettlement. Let us use these instruments, instruct our embassies to issue visas and ask the UNHCR to resettle refugees to our countries. Only then will the most vulnerable refugees reach a safe place. These instruments are available, so we can start today. The only thing we need is political will. Next Thursday, the European Council will discuss this recommendation, but the response until now does not offer much hope: no extra refugees is the only message of the European Union, no matter what the humanitarian consequences are.

It is time to introduce a policy of zero tolerance on the death of migrants at sea. Italy has given us some time by starting a military search and rescue operation called Mare Nostrum. I praise Italy for this intervention, but I warn other European States that this is not the sole responsibility of Italy. Its borders are common European borders and Mare Nostrum could be lifted at any moment. At the same time, the UNHCR warns us that the summer will produce more boat migrants because the sea is calm. So, Europe, prepare for the worst-case scenario: a track record number of boat migrants, without Mare Nostrum. I hope that you get this sense of urgency, and that you will transfer it to your governments.

I started my speech with the distress call of the migrants who died three years ago. At the exhibition in the Chamber today, you can read many more quotes from migrants who were lucky to be rescued. Some saw their comrades disappear into the waves, but I want to end with a hopeful quote from a fisherman, who did what he had to do. He said, “The little girl was the first that we have taken on board. When I had her in my arms I did not care any more about the money and the time lost. At that moment, I had saved humanity. At sea, when you see someone, you cannot turn the other way.”

The PRESIDENT* – You have four minutes remaining. I call Mr Chope, rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Let me begin by thanking the Italian authorities, Italian parliamentarians and the Italian Government for facilitating the two visits that I made to Italy, Sicily and Lampedusa to see the situation on the ground.

My report began in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, when large migratory flows were coming in from Tunisia in particular. Last year, we found that migratory flows had almost ceased from Tunisia but were increasing from Libya and Egypt. In the aftermath of the Lampedusa tragedy, as Ms Strik said, the Italian Government decided that it was intolerable for people to be left to die at sea in the Mediterranean and therefore initiated the Mare Nostrum system of search and rescue for migrants. That system was extremely successful and we should pay tribute to the work of the Italian authorities. Mare Nostrum rescued some 27 790 migrants between being set up in October 2013 and mid-May 2014. That is a lot of people rescued at sea. Even a few days ago, on 21 June, 615 non-EU citizens – 399 men, 104 women and 112 children, mainly from Syria, Eritrea and the Maghreb – were rescued by Mare Nostrum. We need to keep these issues in context and appreciate the work that the Italian Government has done.

      One problem is that the people who set out across the Mediterranean are not necessarily those in greatest need. It is largely those who can resource their journey through friends, family or sponsorship who set out. Those who are most vulnerable – the real victims of the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Eritrea and Sudan – never make it. They hardly make it beyond the borders of those countries. Meanwhile, we give priority largely to economic migrants who come across the Mediterranean. That is why my report talks a lot about how to deal with preventing these people from setting out in the first place and, if they do set out, trying to intercept them before they get into international waters. If they do get into international waters and are then rescued and taken to Italy, let us set up proper systems that comply with the Eurodac regulations and fit in with the Dublin Regulation.

There may be faults with the Dublin Regulation but let us apply it as it is at the moment, without fear or favour, recognising that there are a large number of asylum applications in Italy but even more in Sweden, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Within the European Union, we expect each country to take responsibility for the security of its own borders.

There is a lot of material in my report and I would prefer to reserve the rest of my speaking time to respond to points made in this important debate.

The PRESIDENT – You will have eight minutes and 40 seconds to answer the different speakers.

(The speaker continued in French.)

For the general debate, I now give the floor to the representatives of the political groups. We begin with Dame Angela Watkinson of the European Democrat Group.

Dame Angela WATKINSON (United Kingdom) – In the past, most developed countries have taken their fair share of refugees, a system that served us well. In the past, the number of refugees and displaced persons was manageable. However, now, as a result of so many wars and so much unrest in Africa and the Middle East, the global number of refugees and migrants, legal and illegal, has risen to an unprecedented level, and it is often beyond the ability of neighbouring refugee centres and host countries to provide for their needs. A comprehensive approach is needed from all Council of Europe countries and the European Union to support the efforts of Italy and other front-line countries to manage arrivals.

Real co-operation with third countries is also needed to combat the activities of criminal gangs of people smugglers and to prevent further loss of life in the Mediterranean. Around 80% of illegal immigrants who have been apprehended crossing, or having crossed, the central Mediterranean are believed to have departed from Libya, Eritrea and Syria. Unfortunately, increased patrols by the Italian navy may have had unintended consequences and led to people smugglers placing migrants in unseaworthy vessels without provisions or sufficient fuel to reach Italy, in the expectation of rescue offshore. Migrant communities in Libya and beyond need to be warned of these added risks to avoid further loss of life at sea, and warned that when boats are intercepted in territorial waters the occupants will be returned to the point of embarkation. Of course, proper protection of human rights must be ensured in those countries. The provision of humanitarian aid remains a priority to enable refugees to return to their homes as soon as possible when conflict is over and peace is restored in their own countries.

The increase in the number of refugees and migrants poses serious challenges for host countries beyond the cost of accommodation, medical treatment, food and education. Whereas small numbers of people from different cultures may be assimilated successfully into host countries, very large numbers can present cultural challenges. Many countries of origin do not recognise gender equality, for example, including Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia, where women are treated as being of lower status, without equal rights or control of their own lives. Immigrant men may have a negative attitude towards women in their host country. We do not accept barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation and the forced marriage of immature girls, who subsequently suffer dreadfully in pregnancy and childbirth, and many cultural changes are required for migrants to accept the values of their host country.

The unprecedented global numbers of refugees and migrants call for humanitarian aid to be a priority and for continued co-operation within Europe and third countries to control and discourage the flow towards the Mediterranean; to establish the status of individuals; to distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal migrants; and to protect those entitled to international protection. I support the resolution.

The PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Stroe on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr STROE (Romania) – I thank our rapporteurs for today’s joint debate. Current international migration flows affect all five continents and the Mediterranean region is no exception. Italy has been one of the States most vulnerable to incoming migrants seeking a better future and running away from North Africa, especially Tunisia, Libya and even Egypt, since the Arab Spring.

The flows of people moving from one place to another are increasingly complex and diverse. As new types of migrants appear, the line between false migrants and legal migrants becomes unclear. Migration is not a new phenomenon but today it develops new dimensions, as migrants should be seen mainly as resources and not only as a burden on the receiving countries. The increasing differences in economy, demographics, politics and security matters between countries of origin and host countries are the key to understanding the flows of migration between countries. These disproportions, added to geographical proximity, may explain why Europe is and will remain the main destination for Mediterranean migration. As the European Union grows and as free movement extends eastwards, Schengen will bring the benefits of freedom of movement but will also call on European nations to develop increasing trust in each other’s ability to control who is allowed to enter and enjoy those benefits.

Controlling migration is not enough, and such an effort alone may sometimes seem selfish to those outside Europe. Part of the answer, no matter how optimistic it may sound in these times of crisis, is to expand the space of prosperity and security from our neighbourhood to other areas. I am proud that our Assembly assumed a leading role in establishing the status of partner for democracy for countries in the southern Mediterranean region, and I regret that the measure has not, so far, been replicated at the level of the Committee of Ministers.

The Council of Europe has unique expertise in safeguarding fundamental rights and the rule of law. The functioning of democratic institutions and the universal protection of human rights are ingredients of prosperity, as we have seen in Europe. Therefore, I emphasise that we should be bolder in engaging with our neighbourhood. The Council of Europe, through its specialised bodies, should be more present in North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia, and this interaction should also bring answers to the migration problem.

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

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Jónasson to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – It is fitting to discuss the two reports together: “The ‘left-to-die boat’: actions and reactions” and “The large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows on Italian shores”. What they have in common is their call for a more structured and comprehensive response to the challenges that are involved. However, what they urge us to do collectively differs fundamentally.

      Tineke Strik, the rapporteur for the first report, recalled that in a previous report, she concluded that the “left-to-die boat” tragedy in March 2011, in which 72 people were left to die in a small rubber dinghy, was “clearly a collective failure at every step of the way and by all key actors.” The same is true of other disasters. Some 400 people lost their lives off the coast of Lampedusa in October 2013. Today’s report states that those disasters should have revealed to Europe and the rest of the world the need to “fill in the gaps in the legal framework, policies and practices of rescue at sea.”

      The draft resolution states that we must have credible analysis of what really happened and “ensure the credibility of any judicial probe or investigation” into these matters “by guaranteeing their independence, impartiality and transparency”. We are urged to “adopt clear, binding and enforceable common standards with regard to search and rescue operations…fully consistent with international maritime law and international human rights and refugee law obligations”. Concrete measures are suggested in that respect. The fundamental proposal is that “safe legal channels” of migration be created and that, within Europe, the responsibility for asylum seekers should be shared to a greater extent. The Group of the Unified European Left, which I represent, agreed to the report unanimously.

      The group raised criticisms of the second report. I said that both reports call for a comprehensive approach to the problems. However, the latter report, as was well explained by Christopher Chope, emphasises preventive action. Primarily, it emphasises the importance of making the present system work more effectively, rather than proposing new ways of sharing the burden, as is suggested in the former report. After all, Europe is not altogether innocent when we identify the underlying reasons for the flow of asylum seekers to European countries. I mention Libya and Syria in that regard.

Although some good proposals are made in the second report, we feel that it contains signals that are not in full compliance with the policies of the Council of Europe. We think that those should be corrected using the amendments that have been tabled, which we support wholeheartedly.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schennach to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – On behalf of my group, I thank both rapporteurs for their reports.

I thank Ms Tineke Strik for drawing our attention to this situation over such a long period. The situation has changed drastically. The Mediterranean – the cradle of civilisation – is becoming a mass grave. Thousands of people are dying there. We cannot just accept that. Tineke Strik has brought about a change in the reception and protection of such people. The expression “Mare Nostrum” has been resurrected. It has been said that a great deal needs to change. That is true, but a great deal needs to change in Europe. That is the context of the first report.

Somebody said that one of the main aims of those in the migratory flows is to reach Europe. However, it is Turkey that is at the top of the reception list for refugees. Europe has a tremendous need for immigration. That is why we must look at the situation. We must look at what is happening in Italy – in Lampedusa and Sicily. More refugees arrived in Sicily in one weekend than it usually receives in a year. We must make Europe more open.

We must stop calling things by the wrong names. That is why the two reports contradict one another. Dear Mr Chope, refugees have nothing to do with a “front”. This is not a war. Your report about refugees talks about “front-line countries”. We must stop talking about regular and irregular migrants. When people are fleeing climate change, war or famine, we cannot make distinctions between regular and irregular refugees or fiddle about with different rules and regulations. We must look at refugees in a worldwide context. Some 1.6 million refugees have fled to Pakistan. We must be more generous and open. That is why the two reports contradict one another. My group would prefer, quite decisively, to vote in favour of Tineke Strik’s report.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Pipili to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms PIPILI (Greece)* – The maritime borders of Europe are in the south, along the Mediterranean. There is a crisis in that region and migration is affecting that region. Over the past few years, desperate people – those we call refugees or irregular migrants – have perished at sea because of the methods of the traffickers. That is causing problems for Malta, Cyprus, Italy and all the other southern countries. There are islands in the Aegean Sea that are only a few kilometres from the Turkish coast. There are smugglers and traffickers there.

My country is often criticised by wealthy European nations that simply cannot understand the situation in southern European countries. Greece has 1.5 million unemployed people. We have elderly people, sick people and people who simply cannot afford to buy their medication any more. Despite that, we have spent a lot of money on rescue operations. In 2013, we spent €13 million, if not more. What did we get from the European Union? Just €3 million – that is all. The civil war in Syria has been going on for three years. What solutions have the wealthy European nations come up with in that regard? Absolutely none. We now have another civil war in Iraq. It is all very well criticising the countries of the south, but it is also important to remember the obligations and responsibilities of other countries – the countries that drew the maps of Asia and Africa.

      Between 2012 and 2014, we saw an increase in the number of arrests – by 4,400% – and 20,000 migrants arrived on our shores. We rescued 5,000 lives in peril from the sea, but 110 unfortunately perished in spite of our efforts. In the Aegean Sea, maritime conditions are very tough, so we can only imagine what happens to those small vessels operated by the traffickers.

      I agree with Ms Strik’s report, but I also want an amendment to the Dublin Regulation. There should be a fairer sharing out of burdens and obligations among all European countries.

      The PRESIDENT – The rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but does Ms Strik or Mr Chope wish to speak at this stage?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – May I respond briefly to what Mr Schennach said? First, it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Mediterranean is a mass grave, with thousands of people still dying in it when, because of Mare Nostrum, that is no longer the case. Obviously, people are still dying in the Mediterranean Sea, and for anyone to die is one too many, but to describe it as a mass grave is to overstate the case.

      Secondly, Mr Schennach is wrong to say that we cannot distinguish between regular and irregular. The whole of the law relating to refugees distinguishes between those who are in genuine need of assistance and those who are not, but are seeking a better life. I do not criticise anyone who seeks a better life and wants to move from one country to another, but we cannot say that in effect we will abandon our borders and allow anyone who wishes to come to any part of Europe to do so. That is what we need to distinguish in looking at the reports.

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the main list of speakers in the debate. I remind speakers that they each have three minutes. I also remind colleagues that they may vote for the Secretary General immediately behind the platform here, if anyone has not yet done so. I call Ms Amtsberg.

      Ms AMTSBERG (Germany)* – I, too, have been to Italy, Mr Chope, and been in contact with the Italian authorities. I have been able to visit reception facilities in Rome, as well as in Mineo, where 4 000 people are located in an area designed for only 2 000. I also spoke to the coastguard and the home affairs ministry. Basically, I had the same programme as you, Mr Chope, but I arrived at a different conclusion. I noted that the ad hoc reception of refugees — thousands of refugees arriving over the course of one night – is not the same as a regular asylum application procedure in the UK or Germany. It is not a regular process, and that needs to be acknowledged. We have to remember that it is important for us to guarantee human rights even under such conditions. That is my first point.

      The second thing in the debate that I do not like is figures, with this competition about who is doing most and accepting as many refugees as possible. I represent Germany, and we are doing quite well compared with others, but it is important to look at the figures in relation to a country’s overall population and to take its economy into account. Unfortunately, there are more and more disparities in Europe in that respect.

      On the distribution of refugees – where they are heading towards – I say to Mr Stroe that Europe is the place where they want to arrive. Many refugees are located in neighbouring countries, or they might have been displaced from their own countries – in Lebanon, for example, a quarter of the population consists of Syrian refugees, and Turkey has 1 million Syrian refugees. We cannot talk about a fair distribution, and nor can we say that the pressure on Europe is such that we cannot cope with it – that would not be accurate.

      I thank Ms Strik, because her report is more visionary than yours, Mr Chope. She has thought about how we can prevent deaths at sea, about what measures we can put in place and about providing for legal entry possibilities. It is important not to leave people in the hands of traffickers and smugglers; their lives are already in danger, but they become more dangerous because they have to deal with traffickers. People should be entitled to an asylum application procedure, to buy their ticket and to arrive legally. Mr Chope’s report discusses the Dublin Regulation, but, by sticking to that, the door to other possibilities and a visionary approach to a better future for refugees in Europe is being closed.

      The two reports contradict one another: one is about the externalisation of borders, because that is what Mr Chope is calling for, with camps in Libya, for example. Exporting such things outside Europe, however, is not appropriate. I therefore urge you to support our amendment.

      Mr MAYER (Austria)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports, which thoroughly explore the issues. There is every reason to have a joint debate, although the subjects of the reports are slightly different.

      Europe is facing not only an economic and financial challenge, but a humanitarian one. Given the flows of refugees, Ms Amtsberg, we have to come to grips with the figures. We have to deal with them because of what those figures are: in 2013, 42,000 people crossed the Mediterranean to Italy alone. That is a fact. Up to May this year, 36,600 have come across, which is virtually the same as the annual figure for 2013. Probably by 2015 the figures will have doubled. We need to take that on board, although I admit that the situation could be more dramatic, because no one really knows how many people have drowned in the Mediterranean. The “mass grave” terminology is accurate. Like Mr Chope, I acknowledge that Italy is doing its level best through Mare Nostrum to save people, which is a good example of a change in mentality. All the measures we take, however, will not bring those people back.

      I support both draft resolutions. They have shown the intensity of the debate in the Parliamentary Assembly and its committees. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has had many negotiations on the subject, which shows the challenge that it presents and how much it is discussed by the public. We cannot solve everything for the long term, but it is important to address immediate humanitarian needs.

We have to solve the problems where they occur in Africa. We have to give people prospects in their own countries and we have to tackle armed conflicts. Karlheinz Böhm, who died recently, wanted, through his foundation, Menschen für Menschen, a programme in Ethiopia to create prospects for people to survive there and to stay in their own country. We should support and facilitate such projects – help for self-help, so that people have prospects in their own country.

      Ms BLANCO (Spain)* – I thank Ms Strik and Mr Chope for their work, although there are contrasts between the two reports.

I am a member of parliament in a country that, like Greece and Italy, has a southern border. I will be direct. In his report, Mr Chope makes certain distinctions, such as the one between economic migrants and asylum seekers. However, in one night 700 people might turn up at Ceuta and Melilla, or at Lampedusa. We lack financial support from the European Union and Frontex lacks capability. We also have the problems recognised by Resolution 10811 of this Assembly. There is a lack of legal support and lawyers. In those circumstances, it is very difficult to make the distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers.

      Mali, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq are the countries of origin of people who come by sea. Refugees from those countries were not known in the years after the Second World War. We now have the largest numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in the world. Their arrival affects only a small number of countries, but the problem is organising reception facilities and trying to determine who is an economic migrant and who is an asylum seeker or refugee. It is very difficult to detect the line that demarcates one from the other. It is not possible to determine whether somebody is a refugee or asylum seeker or an economic migrant in a one-hour interview.

      The countries that form the southern border of Europe need yet more resources, support and co-operation, and better co-ordination with the European Union.

      Ms O. MITCHELL (Ireland) – I thank the authors of the two excellent reports on this difficult issue. Although the reports differ, they both understand that the shift in population from South to North has immense implications for every European country, for the migrants and for the countries they leave behind. It is therefore our joint responsibility to deal with those implications. It cannot be left to Italy to prevent the Mediterranean from becoming a graveyard, and nor can we expect Italy alone to be the responsible recipient of every single refugee who comes north from Africa. Expecting Italy and the other front-line countries to hold back the tide on our behalf, and expecting them do so in a humane manner, respecting the human rights and vulnerabilities of all migrants, is not merely selfish but completely unrealistic.

There are no simple solutions to handling the flood of people trying to reach Europe fleeing war and poverty. This issue is complex and multifaceted. Solving one problem often creates another or conflicts with solving other problems. For instance, the speedy identification and processing of refugees conflicts with migrants’ opportunity to claim asylum. Well-intentioned policy decisions often have unintended and sometimes tragic consequences. The well-meant policy of deterrence – stopping refugees before they reach Europe at all – forces them into more perilous and riskier journeys, resulting in appalling death tolls at sea. In turn, that has led to the praiseworthy Italian search-and-rescue efforts in the Mediterranean, which have saved many lives. However, the knowledge that people will be picked up and transported to Italy emboldens both migrants and their smugglers, resulting in ever greater numbers arriving in Italy. In turn, intentionally or unintentionally, but inevitably, that results in large-scale outflow of refugees from Italy north to the rest of Europe.

I do not pretend to have the whole solution, but I know that a piecemeal one will not work. A solution that leaves the responsibility to a few countries will also not work. We must find a mechanism to share the search and rescue in the Mediterranean and to share responsibility – and not just financial responsibility for the reception and processing of migrants. The migratory pull from the rich North and the push from the poor South remain inevitable and unstoppable as long as there is a wide disparity of income and quality of life between the two regions. That pull-and-push effect will be shamelessly and extremely profitably exploited by people smugglers, secure in the knowledge that they have an infinite number of potential customers.

      The long-term reduction in this mass population shift can be achieved only in tandem with improved economic circumstances and prospects in the countries of origin. That long-term project involves strengthening democracy and governance and the provision of aid and primarily ethical trade, transparent and sustainable investment in land and resources and fair tax treatment. We cannot accommodate all who would like to flee wars or poverty in Africa, so we must at least do what we can to end poverty and, at a minimum, avoid the exploitative practices that are still so commonly inflicted on Africa by northern countries.

      Mr SELVİ (Turkey)* – The heart-wrenching tragic accidents in the Mediterranean Sea captured the attention of the international community with a view to ensuring that such catastrophes are not repeated. The reports shed light on the factors that led to the accidents and the measures to be taken. I extend my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs for writing such high-quality reports.

      Irregular migration is a multifaceted issue and necessitates stronger co-operation between States and relevant international organisations. In order to tackle this serious problem, it would be a more realistic approach if countries of origin and destination developed initiatives aimed at opening a dialogue and strengthening co-operation in migration management, and strengthening information flow on irregular migration. Given the complex and cross-border nature of the problem I have described, international co-operation and solidarity are indispensable in finding a solution to the problem of irregular migration.

With that reality in mind, Turkey participates in almost every international and regional activity. Irregular migration is directly associated with development in countries of origin. In order to reverse the increasing trend of irregular migration, the host countries should take necessary measures and step up their development programmes so that the structural reasons for migration decrease and eventually disappear. In that context, international organisations should take the leading role in devising projects that will be beneficial to all stakeholders.

On the other hand, the principle of non-refoulement is the cornerstone of international law and must be strictly observed by all member States. The practice of push-backs is a stark contravention of international agreements. Turning a blind eye to such tragedies is not an option for member states of the Council of Europe. In that light, it is imperative that member States make every possible effort to ensure that a zero-tolerance approach to lives lost at sea is adopted, that safe legal channels for migration are created, and that burden-sharing schemes are implemented.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland)* – I too thank the rapporteurs for their reports.

We are talking about refugees and a major tragedy, particularly in the Mediterranean. This question needs to be raised in the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the rule of law and democracy. How can we deal with the flow of refugees? It would be much better if the refugees did not try to leave their countries. We in Europe have a great responsibility. Ms Blanco, the representative from Spain, talked about Iraq. We have to say that that was a failed policy which was responsible for the flow of refugees. It was easy enough to bomb Saddam Hussein out of existence, but it is not so easy to deal with the flow of refugees. We were not successful doing that, or in relation to Afghanistan either. England, France, Germany and other countries were not successful in Libya. There was military intervention, but the situation did not improve. The Council of Europe would do well to try to ensure that the rule of law applies in those countries, and that the differences in welfare and well-being are reduced so that in the future fewer refugees come from those countries to Europe.

I have a plea to politicians. We cannot do anything in those countries without involving religious leaders. We must involve them. We need to have a religious peace between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and between the Jews and the Christians. That is the only way, in the longer term, that we will enable those countries to develop, to perhaps find their way to democracy and to bring about a certain degree of prosperity and well-being.

Cutting Europe off and protecting it is not a solution. People will get in, one way or another. We must not just combat the flow of refugees. The major powers need to face up to the question of whether they wish to face up to their responsibilities, or whether they want to just turn a blind eye.

Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – I think there is a misunderstanding in this debate and in some of the things I have heard today. We do not have to defend ourselves from people who come to our shores to look for a better future. The right to move to improve one’s standard of life is inalienable. We have to frame a plausible policy in Europe. In 2013, more than 40 000 people disembarked on Italian shores. This is very much a reflection of the wars and instability that often occur, even in Europe. Some 14,000 of those people were Syrians and 13 000 were Eritreans. There were a lot of Somalis and people from other places. These people have a right to ask for protective measures allowed under international law.

After the tragic episode in Lampedusa on 3 October 2013, Italy set up an effective patrolling system, Mare Nostrum, and we ask the European Union to support and strengthen it. Italians, along with other Europeans, felt ashamed that so many lives were lost at sea.

We are now moving towards our six-month presidency of the European Union and we are asking the Council of Europe to help us to promote a more effective policy on asylum and refugees. Why are we asking for more from Europe? One of the solutions would be – Ms Brasseur has discussed this – to open humanitarian corridors and European offices for asylum applications in the transit countries: not camps, but centres. In this way we could, at least to some extent, stop people setting off in the first place and endangering their lives.

My last point is on resettlement. Articles 68 and 80 of the European Union treaty mention burden-sharing and responsibility between member States. These principles are not being implemented under the Dublin system. I calculate that about 40% of people who arrive in Italy want to continue on to other countries in Europe to rejoin their relatives. The current system of asylum means that those who have a right to international protection still have to remain in southern Europe, but we need an effective system for the redistribution of refugees from North Africa so that they can be spread throughout European Union territory.

      (Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Walter.)

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – The subject we are debating today in the Strik and Chope reports – I thank them for the seriousness and passion with which they tackled this problem – cannot leave us indifferent. They have different approaches to the same problem. That is not surprising in a pluralistic Parliamentary Assembly. What is important is that we share common values and that there is an effort being made by all to try to spell out our fundamental values, which are the fundamental values of the Council of Europe and of Europe in general: human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

      What has happened and is continuing to happen in the sea on our continent is a terrible fate. Thousands of people are dying before our eyes. We talk about the phenomenon of migration and 1.5 million people coming to European countries every year. Of those, 40,000 to 50,000 are refugees. In 2014, the 40 000 figure was reached in the first six months of the year. As Ms Santerini reminded us, most of those who come to Italian shores are people asking for refugee status, with 56% coming from Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Gambia, Mali, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are countries afflicted by civil war or oppressive regimes. In 2001, there was a mortality rate of 10 per 1,000 people. Ten years later, this tripled to 30 per 1,000 people. This has become the most dangerous escape route in the world. After the great tragedy of Lampedusa, this is one of the major tragedies we have to face.

      The Mare Nostrum operation involves considerable forces and resources – almost €10 million per month. The phrase “Mare Nostrum” used to have an almost imperialistic tinge to it – “keep out” – but today this has become our sea, something that we should shoulder as a collective burden. The reception facilities are in the countries on the Mediterranean shore, but we all need to look out for our refugees. We need to rethink our foreign policy on international co-operation and asylum. We have to have a clear solution, with all countries bearing responsibility. Mare nostrum is the cradle of our civilisation. It should become a place that bears witness to our humanity.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – In dealing with migratory flows, my first observation is that there cannot be a satisfactory solution for the symptoms unless the causes are adequately addressed. Unfortunately, we in the European Union seem to be at a loss in understanding the causes of the problem. A reconsideration of our Mediterranean policy should be our top priority.

      Unfortunately, the Union for the Mediterranean is at a stalemate. We now need an urgent introduction of the political criteria for co-operation laid out in the Barcelona process. We need a comprehensive strategy for the problems that have arisen from the Syrian crisis and the revival of the problems in Iraq following the dramatic jihadist advance in the wider region. However, there is a feeling of impotence and that Europe is essentially a bystander. States such as Greece and Italy face unprecedented challenges in dealing with the dramatic consequences of immigration, which they are not responsible for and cannot deal with through their meagre national means.

I agree with most of the recommendations in Mr Chope’s report. We need to make rescue operations more effective with the support of Frontex, to arrest traffickers and smugglers and bring them to justice, to ameliorate the identification system and separate out those with real asylum needs where possible and to ensure adequate reception and detention conditions when we can pay for them. Unfortunately, we in Greece spent €62 million in the first six months of this year on that but received only €2.8 million from the European Union. We also need to train our staff to deal with these most desperate human beings in a respectful manner and so on.

My main call, however, is for a thorough re-examination of our wider set of policies, which should be along the following lines. We need to re-examine and modify the southern neighbourhood policy with the aim of stabilisation, democratic development and economic progress in all the States in the southern and south-eastern Mediterranean. We need aid for those countries to help them deal with mounting political and social problems and mechanisms for controlling irregular migration where it begins. However, we mainly need substantial burden sharing between all European Union members through revision of the Dublin II provisions. Locking immigrants in their country of arrival is both unfair and ineffective. We need to create a real European Union external frontiers force by upgrading Frontex both in size and scope.

We have paid a high price – mainly in Greece – in the mounting of fascist logic owing to the high flow of immigrants from all around the world. We now need another European logic. The Dublin logic is keeping Europe apart and not permitting any constructive immigrant policy.

The PRESIDENT* – I call the final speaker for this morning, Ms Antičević Marinović.

Ms ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ (Croatia) – We are talking about people who are desperately heading to Europe, which for them might be a safe haven or, much more likely, a graveyard. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea states: “A master of a ship at sea, which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance.” The international code of signals lists and illustrates that the distress signal system is required to be on the bridge of every ship.

The Mediterranean Sea policies for border control and the right of sovereign States to control their territories clash with the functioning of the European refugee protection system and some aspects of humanitarian law at sea. Since the early 1990s, the situation of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean has become more difficult. Recently, border controls have been enhanced by European and national security forces and new policies have been established. To evade border controls, boats that are only six or seven metres long are now being used, which means that often there is no one with nautical experience on board.

Humanitarian law relating to the sea that deals with search and rescue is covered by various maritime laws, soft laws and traditions. The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue requires the State parties to “ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea regardless of the nationality or status of such a person, or the circumstances in which that person is found, and deliver them to a place of safety.” Also, the captain of every vessel at sea has a duty to provide aid to all persons in distress. That includes the principle of non-refoulement of the Geneva Convention.

Coastal States in the Mediterranean cannot be solely to blame for legal and humanitarian transgressions at sea: other European Union member States should show more solidarity. A resolution of the European Parliament concluded that the Dublin II Regulation is not acceptable for border countries. Most of all, we must find long-term policies to address the causes of migratory flows and, in particular, on the prevention and management of the crisis in the Mediterranean.

The Mediterranean is not an Italian border, a Greek border or other southern countries’ border, but a European border. As long as such tragedies occur in the Mediterranean, no one in Europe can have honour.

I remind colleagues of one case that shows how saving lives can become a criminal act. In August 2007, a fishing ship’s captain saved the lives of 44 people. He landed in Lampedusa and was promptly arrested. Before the court, he said, “Look at my hands. These hands have done many good things, but saving these people was the best thing that they have done in the whole of my life and if I had to do it again, I would.” Let us be as brave as that fishing boat captain was and support these reports.

The PRESIDENT* – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office, in typescript only, for publication in the Official Report.

Mr Chope and Ms Strik, I call upon you to reply. Mr Chope has seven minutes to reply. Ms Strik, as rapporteur, has four minutes. You decide who goes first. I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I thank everyone for their contributions, which were supportive of my report. Unfortunately, there is not one solution; we need a comprehensive approach. Some of you, such as Mr Stroe and Ms Bakoyannis, said that we should support the transit countries and I fully agree. We must take the whole trajectory of migration into account. The Council of Europe is well equipped to support transit countries in raising their human rights standards, but we should do that before refugees find the need to flee further from their countries to Europe.

Mr Mayer is right to say that many asylum seekers come to Europe. That is true for the moment, but the Syrians, Eritreans and others who travel further to get to Europe face huge risks to their lives. Therefore, protected entry is crucial. Right now, nearly 700 000 refugees need resettlement, but only 80 000 places are available and of those not even 600 are offered by Europe. European countries are really lagging behind and should take a larger share of the responsibility.

Mr Chope was completely right when he said that the most vulnerable refugees – the old and the sick – stay behind because they cannot undertake dangerous journeys. They need proper resettlement measures to reach a safe haven. Let us put the debate in the right context: more than 90% of global refugees are hosted in other regions of the world, and many of those are in fragile countries. Mr Chope’s message is that the Dublin Regulation should be complied with. However, the Council of Europe has stated in many reports that Dublin is not the solution but the problem, and Mr Chope does not solve that problem with his report.

It is true that many asylum seekers travel onwards from southern member States to the north, but they can be sent back at any moment as it is those member States who are officially responsible for them. If a system is unfair, how can we expect it to work? Actually, the Dublin Regulation is a European Union instrument and we do not need to police compliance with it. The Council of Europe is here to look at its human rights implications. I hope that the amendments that have been tabled will be adopted in order to make Mr Chope’s report more balanced and more consistent with the concerns of the Council of Europe. Finally, I thank Ms Sipp for her wonderful support in drafting my report.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Chope. You have seven minutes to reply.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – These reports are complementary rather than contradictory. Ms Strik has just referred to the Dublin Regulation, and paragraph 4.5 of the draft recommendation in my report says that we should consider the need for an extensive review of that regulation, so I am not saying, “Let’s leave the regulation as it is.” I am saying that we need to look at the issue in the context of the existing law, rather than saying that we should allow the existing law to be ignored. As a body that respects the rule of law, we should stick with the existing law unless and until it is changed.

      I thank, in particular, my Italian colleagues for their contribution. We know that the Italian presidency of the European Union is taking forward this issue as a top priority, and I hope that they can come to a satisfactory solution. As has been said, an enormous amount needs to be done, not least in ensuring that the causes of these migratory flows are addressed. Several speakers addressed that issue and they all made similar points about the need to boost economies and bring peace and security to the countries of origin of the migrants. Ms Bakoyannis’s reference to the feeling of impotence was particularly relevant because, throughout Europe, people feel that their governments are impotent in dealing with the pressures caused by these migratory flows. We look to see what the European Union is or is not doing, and we see squabbling among the member countries on these issues, which makes us feel as though there is not much that we can do.

      Today’s debate has been really useful because it has shown that, although we have different perspectives, we regard this as a top priority that needs to be addressed. There are issues of security and a need to address the problem of smugglers. It is interesting that just in the last few days the Italians have again been arresting smugglers – on 22 June they arrested five smugglers of Tunisian origin and on 23 June they arrested four suspected smugglers, according to a source from Palermo.

      Somehow, we have to ensure that people cannot profit from trafficking – from the trade in people, which is what it really is. In the tragedy of Lampedusa, for each of the people who lost their lives, they or their relatives might have paid between €1 500 and €5 000, so that human cargo, which was handled so recklessly, was worth more than €1 million. That is why this issue needs to be addressed.

      While I was in Rome, the Italian minister was concerned that some of the people coming in could be a security threat to Europe, and that is why it is essential that, whatever we do with the Dublin Regulation, we ensure that as soon as people arrive on the shores of Europe they are properly identified so that we know who they are. Indeed, if they are in desperate need of assistance, the first thing that they should do is co-operate, and enable us to help them, by telling the authorities where they came from and their identity, and acceding to having their fingerprints taken or – as I recommend in the report – having a DNA sample taken. If they cannot be identified, they will be even more vulnerable during their onward transit to their chosen destination.

      The reports throw up big challenges, but let us put this in the context that the large countries of Europe already face a significant increase in the number of asylum claims. We have heard that Spain, Italy and Greece are very much in the front line, and Mare Nostrum alone is costing Italy €120 million a year. Ms Bakoyannis said that Greece has spent €62 million. The United Kingdom has spent £600 million – around €800 million – in providing relief in Syria to try to address the problem at source, rather than deal with the consequences. The United Kingdom is one of the largest contributors to dealing with these issues at source and I hope that other European Union governments will provide more funding for that, rather than having to deal with the consequences once people have arrived on the mainland of Europe.

      This is indeed a crisis of significant proportions and it needs to be addressed with precision. That is why my report includes several specific recommendations. I urge the Assembly to stick with those recommendations and the terms of our resolution, which has been approved by the Committee, rather than allow it to be watered down into generalisations. There are too many generalisations about this subject in Europe, which leads to increasing cynicism on the part of the electorate. What they want is some specific ideas. They may not all be practical, but let us put forward some specific ideas and see if we can make some progress on these important issues.

      I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, and I am glad that the two issues have been discussed together. Although it is possible to interpret the reports as having differences, their themes are complementary – that this Assembly recognises that this is a serious problem that is having an impact on Italy and other member countries of the Council of Europe. Everybody is involved, and everybody has to work together to try to find a solution.

      The PRESIDENT* – Do you wish to respond, Mr Mariani?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – The Committee viewed the two reports as complementary, as they address different aspects of the issue, and felt it would be an error to seek to oppose them. I support the request from countries from the south of Europe – Greece, Italy and Spain – that are on the front line, if I may use that inelegant expression. They call for European solidarity, which is more necessary than ever today.

      The PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      We will take the draft resolution and recommendation from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on “The ‘left-to-die boat’: actions and reactions”, Document 13532, first.

      There is one amendment to the draft resolution.

      I remind colleagues that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Strik, Mr Mahoux, Mr Kox, Mr Franken and Mr Iwiński, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 8 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly believes that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) should play a role in promoting a common and effective application of the legal framework of rescue at sea, as today different approaches still create excessive delays and failures to rescue people in distress at sea. To this end, it recommends that the IMO:

– step up its efforts with a view to elaborating a regional memorandum of understanding on procedures to facilitate the coordination of search and rescue operations and the disembarkation of persons rescued in the Mediterranean Sea;

– promote new consultations for amending and implementing the current legal framework, and in particular the IMO Conventions, with clearer and stricter rules and definitions;

– amend the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) to expressly provide that exemptions generally applying to ships of war and troopships do not apply to Search and Rescue equipment and devices essential to transmitting and receiving distress signals and for communicating during Search and Rescue operations.”

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 1.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment would extend the paragraph on issues relating to maritime law because more solutions are necessary for a regional approach. Common standards must be applied on search and rescue. I refer to the relevant conventions and the regional co-operation in that regard.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – A member of the French Parliament says that he is in favour in English – the committee is indeed in favour of the amendment. Now that that is clear, the vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13532, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13532, as amended, is adopted, with 124 votes for, 3 against and 4 abstentions.

      We will now move on to consider the draft recommendation contained in Document 13532. There is one amendment to the draft recommendation, which has been unanimously approved by the committee. If there is no objection I declare it approved by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      I call Ms Spadoni on a point of order.

      Ms SPADONI (Italy)* – The interpretation is not coming through in Italian.

      The PRESIDENT* – There is no objection.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Strik, Mr Mahoux, Mr Kox, Mr Franken and Mr Iwiński, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.2, after the words “outside Europe”, insert the following words: “, with due regard to the concerns of the Assembly in respect of the establishment of transit or processing centres adopted in Recommendation 1808 (2007) and Resolution 1569 (2007).”

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13532, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13532, as amended, is adopted, with 126 votes for, 5 against and 5 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to consideration of amendments to the second draft resolution and draft recommendation on “The large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows on Italian shores”, Document 13531. Eight amendments have been tabled to the draft resolution, and four to the draft recommendation.

      They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Ms Strik, Ms Maij, Mr McNamara, Mr de Vries and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the words “subsequent control of movement of the identified people, and swift and transparent processing of mixed migration flows” with the following words: “a fair and efficient asylum procedure”.

      I call Ms Amtsberg to support Amendment 1.

      Ms AMTSBERG (Germany) – Anyone who has been to one of the sub-standard reception facilities in Italy, such as in Mineo, should be aware that the problem for asylum seekers and refugees is not that there is too little control. In fact, they have to wait under the control of the private companies that run the overcrowded camps and make money from keeping asylum seekers and refugees in poor living conditions. Sometimes, it takes up to 18 months to process asylum claims. Italy must organise its asylum procedure so that it is more fair and efficient. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I am against the amendment, as is the committee, because it would insert general language and remove the very thing that Ms Amtsberg wants: the reference to the swift and transparent processing of mixed migration flows. I agree that the Italian authorities must meet that requirement, and I think that Ms Amtsberg agrees, so we should keep the specific wording.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Mr Cilevičs, Ms Strik, Ms Maij and Mr de Vries, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the words “people who enter the country irregularly do not continue their journey into other member States of the Council of Europe” with the following words: “refugees and asylum seekers have access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and adequate reception facilities in compliance with European Union standards”.

      I call Ms Amtsberg to support Amendment 2.

Ms AMTSBERG (Germany) – I support the call in the resolution for more solidarity with Italy, Spain and Greece. That can be achieved only by repealing the principle of the Dublin Regulation. The paragraph should concentrate on access to a fair and efficient asylum system and procedures, and on adequate reception facilities as part of a common European asylum system.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I am against the amendment because it would introduce vague language instead of the specific language that is already in the paragraph. Solidarity is a two-way process, and as currently drafted the paragraph is balanced.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Amtsberg, Ms Maij, Mr McNamara, Mr de Vries and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 7.1.4 with the following paragraph:

“ensure that the Dublin Regulation is applied in a way that allows refugees to access durable solutions and avoids irregular onward movements;”.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 3.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – We propose to amend the paragraph because it currently focuses only on the requirement for everyone to comply with the Dublin Regulation – the first arrival principle – but we must ensure that the regulation is applied so that refugees always have durable solutions and access to protection. That is how member States should apply the Dublin Regulation.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The amendment calls for reinterpretation of the Dublin Regulation, but that is not what we should be doing. As the draft resolution says later, we should consider the need for an extensive review of the Dublin Regulation, but as a body that believes in the rule of law, we cannot start to undermine that law by saying that we want it to be interpreted in a particular way.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Mr Cilevičs, Ms Strik, Mr Hunko and Mr Kox, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 9.2.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 4.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Mr Chope proposes that refugees have to give their DNA material, which would be a far-reaching proposal with a huge impact on people’s privacy. We do not think it would be proportionate, and there would also be a great risk that DNA material could be used for many other aims. Fingerprints should do.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I think the draft resolution has been misinterpreted. What we are saying is that if people do not wish to give their fingerprints, they should be able to give their DNA instead. As the report states, there have been examples of people burning their fingers to prevent their fingerprints from being taken. Would it not be much more humanitarian to allow those people to be subjected to DNA testing?

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Amtsberg, Ms Maij, Mr McNamara, Mr de Vries and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.3, after the word “effective”, insert the following words: “and include effective human rights safeguards”.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 5.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Paragraph 9.3 focuses on the effective implementation of border controls. We would like to add a focus on effective human rights safeguards. As well as the border being controlled, there should be effective access to an asylum procedure – the two are complementary.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The amendment implies that there are no human rights safeguards at the moment, which I think is unfair on the Italian authorities.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Ms Strik, Ms Maij, Mr McNamara, Mr de Vries and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 9.4 with the following paragraph:

“respond positively to suggestions for the exploration of further possibilities for protected entry into Europe and to open legal channels for migrants to reach the territory in a regular manner;”.

      I call Ms Amtsberg to support Amendment 6.

      Ms AMTSBERG (Germany) – We should not even think about the suggestion of setting up camps outside the European Union, which would externalise the responsibility for refugee protection and imply that States that have not signed the Geneva Convention should have responsibility for processing applications.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I do not think we should reject any possible solutions, and this is one suggestion put forward by the Italian Minister of the Interior. Many other people have said, even during this debate, that we should try to deal with the problem at source rather than leave people to go out into the Mediterranean and risk their lives.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Santangelo, Ms Spadoni, Ms de Pietro, Mr di Stefano and Ms Catalfo, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.4, replace the word “camps” with the word “centres”.

I call Mr di Stefano to support Amendment 11.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy)* – The amendment seems small, but in fact it is a matter of substance. I work in the Italian Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, and I have examined the data and found that we financed body bags for those dying in the Libyan camps in the Gaddafi era. We do not want that to be repeated, so the word “camps” sends a shiver down our spine. Migrants should be housed in reception centres – we do not want camps such as the Libyan ones, which were just mass graves in the desert, to be revived.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Paragraph 9.4 already states that consideration should be given to establishing centres, so it uses the language that the supporters of the amendment want. The beginning of the paragraph records – accurately, as I understand it – a suggestion of the Italian Minister of the Interior that camps should be set up. If he did not say that word we can obviously use the word “centres”, but I believe it is accurate to say that he referred to camps. We recommend that they should be called centres.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Santangelo, Ms Spadoni, Ms de Pietro, Mr di Stefano and Ms Catalfo, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.6, replace the words “Libyan coastguard” with the following words: “North African countries”.

I call Ms Spadoni to support Amendment 12.

      Ms SPADONI (Italy)* – In paragraph 9.6 of the draft resolution, Mr Chope talks about financial support for Libya. We question the logic of sending support to a country that is 172nd on the Transparency International corruption list. There would be no transparent support and no effective help. We ask that the reference be broadened to North African countries rather than just the Libyan coastguard.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee and I are against the amendment because a specific request has been made by the Libyan coastguard – it is not the Libyan Government, but it is a functioning part of Libya, a country that has more than 1 000 miles of coast to protect but only four small vessels with which to do it. The Libyan coastguard has asked the European Union to help with capacity building, which I think is a reasonable request. Indeed, it will fit with the European Union’s border assistance initiative, so I believe that we should respond positively to the request. That is what paragraph 9.6 suggests.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13531.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13531 is adopted, with 114 votes for, 31 against and 14 abstentions.

We will now consider the draft recommendation, to which four amendments have been tabled. I remind you that you have 30 seconds to speak.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Amtsberg, Ms Maij, Mr McNamara, Mr de Vries and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 4.2.

I call Ms Strik to support amendment 7.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The report proposes that migrants intercepted in the territorial waters of third countries should be able to be automatically returned to those countries, in contradiction of the non-refoulement principle that we should always assess first whether it is safe for refugees to be returned and in contradiction of our own European Convention on Human Rights.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – As the committee accepted, Ms Strik's interpretation of the law is incorrect as non-refoulement refers to international waters and we are talking about what happens within territorial waters, which is the same as being within the land border apart from the fact that it is just off the coast. It is sensible that if someone is at risk of losing their life in the territorial water of a country somebody should be able to rescue them and to return them to the port from which they embarked.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARIANI (France)* – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Mr Cilevičs, Ms Strik, Mr Hunko and Mr Kox, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 4.3.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 8.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The paragraph about negotiation for returns to third countries is far too generally formulated. In my report, which we have just adopted, I say that basic human rights standards should be a condition before we start returning people or co-operating on migration. We have readmission agreements, of course, but they are with countries that have those basic norms. The paragraph implies that we could have an agreement with Libya or Egypt in such cases and that puts the lives of the refugees who could be returned at risk.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Sadly, this is a misinterpretation of the text, again. The text does not ask for unconditional agreements but merely encourages negotiations about the modalities and conditions of return to safeguard against the very points that Ms Strik makes. It is important to include this paragraph in the recommendation.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARIANI (France)* – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Mr Cilevičs, Ms Strik, Mr Hunko and Mr Kox, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 4.4 with the following paragraph:

“require, as its top priority for the coming year, that each member State of the Council of Europe, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (23 February 2011, Application No. 27765/09), review their border control and return operations in order to ensure the full respect of the principle of non-refoulement with regard to every individual intercepted outside their territory and rule out the possibility of collective expulsions, as prohibited under Article 4 of Protocol IV to the ECHR, in line with the Court's judgment.”

I call Ms Amtsberg to support Amendment 9.

Ms AMTSBERG (Germany) – This paragraph ignores the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. I remind you that the Court has said that Italy violated the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment when it intercepted migrants at the sea and pushed them back towards Libya. The Council of Europe should guarantee that European Union institutions such as Frontex and all member States respect that judgment in their border control operations.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment as it removes from paragraph 4.4 the reference to the established principle that each member country of the Council of Europe is entitled to maintain control over its own borders and to grant asylum or a lesser form of international protection to those who meet the necessary requirements, including the legal requirements, obviously. I think that that is an important principle that should be reflected in the recommendation.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARIANI (France)* – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Amtsberg, Ms Strik, Ms Maij, Mr de Vries, Mr McNamara and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.5, insert the following paragraph:

“explore further possibilities for protected entry into Europe and for opening legal channels for migrants to reach the territory in a regular manner.”

      I call Ms Amtsberg to support Amendment 10.

Ms AMTSBERG (Germany)* – I have to do this bit in German, because once again I need to appeal to you. We have an extra paragraph that we would like to put to the vote to keep the question of legal channels at the forefront of our minds. This is supported by many people in the Parliamentary Assembly and I ask you to support the amendment. If you do not, we will not have anything to take us forward into the future by changing the situation for these people, and in that case I will ask you not to give the recommendation a two-thirds majority.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – We already say in paragraph 4.5 that we should consider the need for an extensive review of the Dublin Regulation and its implementation. That is specific, but the amendment’s addition is vague. What does it mean? We as a Parliamentary Assembly should pass recommendations that people understand. This could mean anything and in that respect it fails as it is too vague.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARIANI (France)* – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13531. I remind you that a two-thirds majority of the votes cast is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13531 is adopted, with 123 votes for, 33 against and 13 abstentions.

That concludes our debate on the two reports. I thank the two rapporteurs and the committees involved for their excellent work.

      I remind members that the vote for the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe is still open in the area behind the President’s chair and will close at 5 p.m. I urge those who have not yet voted to do so.

3. Address by Mr Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan

The PRESIDENT* – I invite members to stay in their seats because shortly we will hear an address by President Aliyev. I also welcome the Speaker of the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan, our partner for democracy: you are most welcome.

(The speaker continued in English.)

Dear President Aliyev, welcome to the Assembly Chamber, which you already know well from your past parliamentary experience, including as a member of our Assembly and as one of our vice-presidents, and from your previous visit to Strasbourg in 2004. We are particularly glad to welcome you to the Palais de l’Europe at a time when Azerbaijan is chairing the Committee of Ministers. I also welcome your whole delegation, including your Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom we had the honour to hear from on Monday. I shall make one remark, if I may: I see only men in your delegation. I address that to you for your next visit.

The role of our Assembly is to provide support to all our member States, especially those that have to deal with conflict on their territories. Mr President, you know very well our principled position on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which I reiterated in my opening speech yesterday. The independence and secession of a regional territory may be achieved only through a lawful and peaceful process, not in the wake of armed conflict. Diplomatic efforts must be stepped up over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I assure you that the Assembly stands ready to support this process within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group. At the same time, we also stand ready to continue working with parliamentarians, members of the Assembly from the Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations, to foster dialogue and help build an atmosphere of trust – trust that is essential for making progress.

Mr President, in your previous address to the Assembly in April 2004 you said: “Economic growth and democratisation of society are key elements of our policy.” I fully share your view that one cannot exist without the other. As you rightly said: “You can be economically strong, but if you do not have democracy and transparency and if human rights are not protected, the country will never be successful.” Your country managed to have strong economic development and to reduce poverty. So far, Azerbaijan has also signed and ratified 59 Council of Europe conventions. At the same time, there are still many issues to be addressed regarding democracy and human rights, and I know you will cover them in your address and your replies to our questions.

I am glad that we were able to discuss these issues, as well as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of the press, in a frank and constructive manner during our recent meeting in Baku and this morning in my office. We also spoke about my request to visit some human rights activists and journalists currently in detention in your country. I hope that your country’s presidency will be an opportunity to accelerate the reform process in the interests of Azerbaijan and, above all, in the interests of all the people of your country, who should enjoy dignity, democratic rights and freedoms and the benefits of progress and development, just as their fellow Europeans do. I know that we – and I – can count on your support. Now, the floor is yours.

Mr ALIYEV (President of Azerbaijan) – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first, I thank the President for the invitation. It is a great honour and pleasure to come back to Strasbourg. I am also very grateful to the President for quoting my speech, which I delivered here 10 years ago. I can only confirm that what I said then is our position with respect to reforms. The successful development of Azerbaijan during the years of independence shows that economic and political reforms, if implemented in parallel, lead to success.

The PRESIDENT – May I interrupt? First, I ask the press to leave the Chamber because our members cannot see the president making his address. I also remind people who have come to listen to the president that they are not allowed to express any act of approval or disapproval. I also ask the press not to obstruct the view of our parliamentarians. I think there is still one problem with a camera, which should be dealt with. Excuse me for interrupting you but, as the President of this Assembly, I have to make sure that everything is developing as it should. You have the floor again.

Mr ALIYEV – You have quoted me twice, so you may interrupt me twice, at least. I am ready for that.

The reforms in Azerbaijan show that when implemented in parallel they can lead to substantial progress. The years of Azerbaijan’s membership of the Council of Europe have been years of very rapid economic and political transformation. Reforms in Azerbaijan started in the mid-1990s, some years after the restoration of our independence. The first years of independence were marked by enormous complications and tragedy for our people. There was social unrest, economic complications and difficulties, political, economic and military crises, and inefficient government from the previous leadership of Azerbaijan. That all led to a very serious situation, with even our statehood being put in question. As a result of that situation, we had civil war in Azerbaijan in 1993, which was the most tragic part of our modern history.

      The reforms started in the mid-1990s. The new democratic constitution of Azerbaijan was adopted. The economic and political reforms have been conducted in parallel, which has led to the substantial progress that our country has achieved since independence. Joining the Council of Europe was a conscious choice. We wanted to be a member of this institution and to deepen our reforms. We knew that joining the Council of Europe entailed commitments. We were ready to make those commitments. We have implemented our commitments and obligations. As Madam President said, we have joined almost 60 conventions. We have upgraded our legislation. The reforms that we have implemented have created a very positive atmosphere in our society.

      All the fundamental freedoms are provided in Azerbaijan. We have freedom of political activity. There are hundreds of political institutions and parties. We have freedom of expression and media freedom. There are more than 40 daily and almost 200 weekly or monthly newspapers. There are nine countrywide TV channels, 14 regional channels and 14 cable TV channels. We have free Internet and more than 70% of people in Azerbaijan use it. The government is implementing a project to bring broadband Internet to every city and village, which demands large investment.

As we have free Internet and no censorship, we cannot restrict media freedom. On the contrary, we are in favour of media freedom because it means democracy – it helps the government to concentrate on shortcomings and creates a necessary link between the government and society. Media freedom is one of the biggest assets of modern Azerbaijan, and we are proud of that. I say once again that media freedom is fully provided.

      Freedom of association and assembly is also fully provided in Azerbaijan. The political institutions take advantage of that and, from time to time, hold rallies in a peaceful atmosphere. That shows our commitment to reform.

The implementation of the reforms is a priority for us not because we need to implement commitments or get a positive assessment from international institutions, but because we are modernising our country. As I said 10 years ago, without strong democratic institutions, our economic success will not be sustainable. The economic and political reforms that are running in parallel and the democratisation of our society have created a positive atmosphere in our society.

Religious freedom is another of our country’s biggest assets. We are a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. For centuries, the representatives of different nationalities and religions have lived in peace and dignity in Azerbaijan. Concentrating on the values of multiculturalism will be one of the priorities of our chairmanship.

Azerbaijan initiated the Baku process, which started in 2008. We invited the ministers of culture from the countries of the Council of Europe to meet the ministers of culture from the countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Baku. It was the first time in history that representatives of those two important international institutions had got together. Vice versa, in 2009, we invited ministers from the countries of the Council of Europe to participate in an Islamic conference summit in Baku.

Multiculturalism is therefore one of our big advantages and one of our big assets. We will definitely concentrate on it during our chairmanship, because there is a great need for it. Unfortunately, we are seeing tendencies in our neighbourhood, in the Middle East and in Europe that are of concern – the tendencies of alienation, separation and sometimes even hatred. We need to address that issue because we live in this world and must contribute to making it a better world for everyone – for people of all religions. People must be able to live in dignity and peace, regardless of their standard of living. Therefore, tensions that are based on religious sentiments are very dangerous for every country, including societies that have a multinational component.

Another priority will be to concentrate on the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of international organisations. As far as we are concerned, several important resolutions and decisions have been adopted by the United Nations Security Council, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the OSCE with regard to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but none of them have been implemented. There should be a mechanism for the implementation of resolutions that are adopted by prominent international institutions. That mechanism must be followed by all of us, otherwise the resolutions will lose their substance.

We will advocate strongly the superiority of the norms and principles of international law. I am very grateful to Madam President for the comments that she made in her introductory remarks about the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. That is a fundamental principle of international law and the main principle that must be observed in resolving the protracted conflicts.

Our Foreign Minister elaborated on our other priorities when he addressed the Assembly yesterday, so I will not go into much detail, but will just name them. The fight against corruption will be one priority. Azerbaijan has unique experience in that area. Unfortunately, all the former republics of the Soviet Union have the same problem: the legacy of corruption seriously damages the successful development of our countries. Azerbaijan has implemented numerous measures, including administrative and institutional reforms, to combat corruption and we have had great success. One such measure is the relatively newly established public services programme, which has existed for one and a half years. Already, almost 2 million people have applied to the centres and received the necessary documents. That has seriously reduced the level of corruption in Azerbaijan. During his visit to Azerbaijan, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe visited one of the centres. It will be interesting for other member States to hear about that experience.

Youth and education are a top priority in our domestic policy. We have a young, dynamic and educated society. The level of literacy in Azerbaijan is close to 100%. We understand that an educated society is the only guarantee of successful development, and that it can be a guarantee against radicalism and fundamentalism. Education is therefore one of the top priorities for our government. Over the past 10 years, more than 3 000 schools have been built in Azerbaijan and the quality of education is improving. At the same time, we have implemented numerous programmes in collaboration with the leading universities of the world. We are sending our young students to train abroad so that our intellectual potential is in line with our economic potential.

Those are the main priorities that we will concentrate on during our chairmanship. Our chairmanship is an important milestone in the history of our membership of the Council of Europe. Of course, the chairmanship is based on the principle of rotation and it is just that our turn has come. At the same time, it is a good chance for us to present our country and to address important issues of concern in different European countries, such as those to do with democracy, the rule of law and sometimes selective policy approaches to similar situations in different countries. During our chairmanship, we will definitely be raising the sometimes differentiated approach to countries in the same region. Refusal of such principles of double standards will therefore be a great contribution, if we succeed in our chairmanship.

As far as the general development of Azerbaijan is concerned, our country is young, but with great history and traditions and much dynamism. It has an active foreign policy and plays a stabilising role in the region. The potential of Azerbaijan is growing and our initiatives in regional co-operation are supported by our neighbours. Furthermore, our neighbourhood is growing, so initiatives that we launch now cover many more countries.

We have strong support from the international community and a positive reputation in international institutions. Our greatest diplomatic success was the election of Azerbaijan as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. For a young country which still needs to present itself to the world, that was the biggest achievement; we are proud of that. We are also proud that 155 countries supported our candidacy – an absolute majority of the international community therefore trusts and supports Azerbaijan and considers it a reliable partner. In the two years of our membership, we twice chaired the Security Council. Our chairmanship and membership were overwhelmingly assessed as very successful. We contributed significantly to peace, security, stability and predictability in the world. Membership of the Security Council was a unique experience for our country, which we will of course use in future initiatives.

      We have established constructive relationships with an absolute majority of the international community and our bilateral ties with European countries are developing successfully. Europe is our main trading partner, with historic links between Azerbaijan and Europe strengthened during the years of independence. At the same time, Azerbaijan is a Muslim country and an active member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. We play an important role not only geographically, but as a cultural and political bridge in our region. The more successful we are, the more active a role we can play in the interaction between civilisations, as shown by the International Forum on the Dialogue among Civilisations in Baku. Azerbaijan is a world centre of multiculturalism, and an international centre of multiculturalism will soon be created in our country.

      The biggest of the problems that we face is the violation of our internationally recognised territory – the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan puts the whole region in danger. It is a called a “frozen” or “protracted” conflict, but neither is it frozen nor can it be frozen, because it must be resolved. Nagorno-Karabakh is an historic part of Azerbaijan; Azerbaijanis lived in Nagorno-Karabakh for centuries and Armenians settled in the area less than 200 years ago, but historic monuments and our heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh have now unfortunately been destroyed by the occupying Armenian army.

The conflict resulted in the occupation of 20% of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis were the subject of ethnic cleansing by Armenian gangs and the Armenian army and 1 million Azerbaijanis became refugees and internally displaced persons in Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh and seven districts around it have been under occupation for more than 20 years. That is the biggest injustice, because, as I said, Nagorno-Karabakh is an historic part of Azerbaijan. Even the word “Karabakh” is of Azerbaijani origin and, in fact, all the geographic toponyms of that area belong to our people.

According to the norms of international law, Nagorno-Karabakh is an integral part of Azerbaijan. The whole world recognises Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and no one, including Armenia, recognises Nagorno-Karabakh and its illegal regime as an independent entity. The United Nations Security Council, the world’s highest international body, has adopted four resolutions demanding unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories. As I said, those resolutions unfortunately have not been implemented. Again, we have a policy of double standards. Some UN resolutions are implemented within hours, but in our case it has been more than 20 years.

There is no mechanism to deal with the situation and Armenia simply does not want to liberate any territories. It does not want to leave occupied territory; it wants everything unchanged and to keep the status quo. That is in total contradiction to the efforts of the international mediators, the OSCE Minsk Group and its co-chairs. The Presidents of the United States, Russia and France, three permanent members of the UN Security Council, have on a couple of occasions made clear statements that the status quo is not acceptable, which means that Armenia should start withdrawing its occupying forces from occupied territory. The Armenians, however, simply ignore international law, statements from leading countries of the world and the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which was adopted in 2005. A corresponding resolution has been adopted by the European Parliament, and it and the decisions of the OSCE all demand de-occupation and the withdrawal of Armenian troops from occupied territories. Unfortunately, however, the conflict has not been resolved.

      Azerbaijan behaves very constructively. For more than 20 years, we have been committed to the negotiation process. Everyone, including the Armenians, should understand, however, that something might happen, so the sooner that the Armenian leadership recognises that it is unacceptable in the 21st century to occupy the territory of other countries, the better. Unfortunately, the approach of the Armenian leadership is not adequate.

      The previous President of Armenia, speaking here in this home of democracy, said that there is a national incompatibility between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. His successor, the current leader of Armenia, describes the conflict as a religious one. That approach is absolutely unacceptable. Azerbaijanis have no incompatibility with any nation – Armenians might do so, but not only with us, because their country is now mono-ethnic, with 99.9% of the population of Armenia being Armenians. All the minorities, including Azerbaijanis, were forced to leave. That racist approach cannot prevail in negotiation. We need to address the issue and to restore justice and the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

      Unfortunately, as a result of the occupation, our historic monuments are destroyed, our mosques have been levelled to the ground, our cemeteries destroyed, and today’s occupied territory is a land totally destroyed. The OSCE twice sent missions – fact-finding and field assistance missions – to the occupied territories. Its report clearly shows that everything is destroyed. That is a result of Armenian vandalism in the occupied territories.

      Territorial integrity is a basic principle of international law. Self-determination, to which the Armenian side always refers, should not violate the territorial integrity of countries. The Armenian leadership should read the Helsinki Final Act carefully. They would see the clear definition. In addition, Armenians are self-determined. They have an Armenian State, which was created on historically Azerbaijani lands. Perhaps many members of the Assembly do not know – the Armenian delegation knows – that one of the first decrees of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, which was created a result of the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1918, made Yerevan the capital of the Armenian State. Armenians already have a State. How many Armenian States do they want? Do they want to create another State everywhere they live? Why should there be another Armenian State in Azerbaijan? One is enough. Self-determination should not violate territorial integrity, and the conflict must be resolved as soon as possible for the benefit of all of us, including Armenian people, who suffer from today’s Armenian Government, which leads the country towards total collapse and catastrophe.

      Despite the conflict, Azerbaijan’s economy is growing. In the past 10 years, Azerbaijan’s was the fastest-growing economy in the world. No other country increased its economic potential as much as Azerbaijan did. Our gross domestic product multiplied by 3.4. We managed to diversify the economy. As a result, the non-energy sector is 55% of our GDP. The international and financial institutions highly value our reforms. During the years of financial crisis, the main ratings agencies – Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch – upgraded Azerbaijan’s credit rating. The Davos World Economic Forum ranks Azerbaijan’s economy No. 39 in the global competitiveness index. That means that we have managed to transform our planned economy into a market economy to the maximum degree, creating a competitive economy. Some 1.2 million jobs were created in Azerbaijan. The fair distribution of national wealth is one of our country’s main achievements. As a result, the level of poverty dropped in the past 10 years from 49% to 5.3%; unemployment is 5%; the budget deficit is at the limits accepted by European Union countries; and foreign debt is 8% of GDP.

The financial situation is stable and social programmes are being implemented. The political situation is stable. As I have said, Azerbaijan is an active member of the international community and the country is modernising. We look to the future with great optimism.

I do not want to take all our time for myself – I want to leave time for questions. As you can imagine, I could talk about our country for several hours, but I do not want to use all the time for my presentation. Chairing the Committee of Ministers is a big challenge and a big responsibility. We are ready for it. We will do our utmost to contribute to the common values of democracy, the rule of law and freedom.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much for your speech, President Aliyev. A number of members want to ask questions. I remind members that they have 30 seconds to ask their questions and not to make statements. We will first have the speakers on behalf of the political groups. The first question is by Mr McNamara on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – Amnesty International states that there are 19 prisoners of conscience in your jails, President Aliyev. Others say there are more. The European Court of Human Rights has said that the pre-trial detention of one, Ilgar Mammadov, was unlawful and motivated by electoral considerations. Another, Anar Mammadli, exposed flaws in the recent presidential elections, which you won. Activists have been jailed for merely expressing an opinion and calling for peaceful demonstration. This body has adopted a definition of political prisoner, but the rapporteur was denied access to Azerbaijan. Do you believe that that diminishes your legitimacy to chair this body, and will you release those prisoners?

      The PRESIDENT – [Interruption.] I kindly remind people attending our meeting today – I thank them for coming – not to applaud.

      Mr ALIYEV – First of all, there are no political prisoners in Azerbaijan. All of what Mr McNamara has said is based on false information or his biased approach to our country. Not for the first time, he is trying to insult Azerbaijan, but without any visible success. I am sure that his initiative yesterday will have the same outcome as the initiative of Mr Strasser a couple of years ago, which resulted in the fiasco of January 2013.

      Unfortunately, Azerbaijan is subject to deliberate provocations. We know the source and we know the reason. It has nothing do with human rights and democracy. It is political. The question Mr McNamara read from his piece of paper was probably given to him by someone who is interested in attacking Azerbaijan.

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I write my own speeches and questions.

      Mr ALIYEV – I understand. If you want an open discussion, we can find another place for it. There are no political prisoners in Azerbaijan. The report of Mr Strasser failed here in this room because it was based on false information, slander and rumours. Mr McNamara is trying to do the same thing. He is trying to mislead the opinion of the Assembly by repeating that false information. There are no political prisoners. Azerbaijan is a member of the European Court of Human Rights. All issues relating to prisoners can be addressed there. We respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, once again, the attempts to attack our country are absolutely groundless. They will have no result.

The PRESIDENT – Ms Bakoyannis has the floor, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I welcome you, President Aliyev. I would like to go back to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. There have been many initiatives in the last few years. The Minsk Group is active in the region, as is the OSCE. Do you think there is room for the Council of Europe to try to take the initiative on Nagorno-Karabakh? How do you assess the situation in the last months? Do you think there is momentum you could use?

      Mr ALIYEV – We have always strongly supported addressing the Nagorno-Karabakh issue here in the Council of Europe. That has happened from the beginning of our membership. As I said in my speech, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution in 2005 that clearly stated that it was necessary to put an end to the occupation. Later, an ad hoc committee was created here, but due to the unconstructive behaviour of the Armenian delegation, which boycotted the committee, it is no longer meeting.

The more international institutions pay attention to the issue, the sooner we can find a solution. As I have said, Armenia wants to keep everything unchanged. It wants the international community to forget about the conflict. Therefore, it believes that the Minsk Group format is best for it. We understand that there can currently be no alternative to the Minsk Group for mediation, but it has not produced any results. The Council of Europe should address this issue more actively. The restoration of the activity of the ad hoc committee would be an important step.

      As far as the prospects for negotiation are concerned, unfortunately we do not have much optimism. The Armenians are trying to do everything they can to keep the status unchanged. From time to time, we have bilateral meetings with the Armenian President, most recently in November in Vienna. That produced some optimism and we even elaborated on that publicly, but the old tactics of making a minor step forward and then delaying the process have continued. Without the active involvement of the international community, Armenia would try to continue what they have done so far.

      The PRESIDENT – I call the Earl of Dundee, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – On human rights improvement and reform, apart from the current agreed and public action plan with the Council of Europe, which particular measures will you and your country now adopt to achieve specific targets?

      Mr ALIYEV – The action plan was agreed during Mr Secretary General’s visit to Azerbaijan. It is a comprehensive document and a road map for future co-operation between Azerbaijan and the Council of Europe. Human rights, democratic reforms and the rule of law are our priorities. As I said, a lot has been done but there is still a lot more to do. We are open to criticism when it is based on facts. We are not perfect of course, perhaps like other members of the Parliamentary Assembly. Sometimes criticism is based on a biased approach and is just an attempt to damage the reputation of Azerbaijan. The years of Azerbaijan’s membership of the Council of Europe have been years of rapid political reforms. It was the right choice for our government and the right choice for the Council of Europe to adopt us into its family. I am sure that future collaboration, including the months of our chairmanship, will produce new good results with respect to democratic reforms in our country.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Xuclà to ask a question on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – In 2006, the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted the Council of Europe’s convention on the fight against corruption, which is very important in terms of our standards. We have very clear guidelines and we have GRECO. What measures have your government taken since then to implement the convention, and on the law on access to information and transparency concerning funds and properties?

      Mr ALIYEV – As I said, corruption is one of the main areas that we will concentrate on during our chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Corruption is a disease that needs to be cured. Our compatriots from the former Soviet Union – all of us – were in a difficult situation because of deep-rooted corruption in our societies. Elimination of this evil is one of our government’s targets. Without that, our success cannot be sustainable. Signing up to the convention and using the positive experience of European Union member States in particular is an extremely important part of our country’s co-operation with the EU. As I said, implementing institutional measures gives much better results than administrative measures or punishment. The issue, unfortunately, cannot be resolved by changing the people, so we have found a mechanism. As I said, the public services system makes corruption impossible.

I fully agree with what you said on transparency. We have a good record on that. Azerbaijan was one of the first countries to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative of the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Blair. Azerbaijan became the first full member of this initiative and there is now 100% transparency in the extractive industries in Azerbaijan. We need to have the same percentage of transparency in our financial and public services sectors, and we are working on that.

      The PRESIDENT – The final speaker on behalf of the political groups is Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Thank you very much for your most interesting speech, in which you gave quite a positive analysis of your country’s human rights track record. As you are aware, not everybody agrees with this positive analysis – I met one of them when I was in Baku and I will meet others today. The Assembly will of course look at it in January. In this respect, would you be prepared to consider organising in your country a round table structure through which you could engage in transparent dialogue with those who think that Azerbaijan could and should substantially improve its human rights track record? I am sure that the Assembly would be willing to assist you in organising it if necessary. I look forward to your answer.

      Mr ALIYEV – Definitely. Not only are we ready, but we are willing to organise such a session. We addressed this issue in our interactions with our partners during the visit of Madam President and Mr Secretary General in May. We have had substantive discussions on the matter. We disagree on some issues, but at the same time there is a constructive dialogue. As I said, we do not consider the situation in Azerbaijan with respect to human rights and democracy to be perfect, but there has been great progress. We are ready to react, and we do react, to constructive criticism. In my comments, I concentrated on a positive example of our reforms because this audience usually concentrates on the negative. To create even the slightest balance I wanted to take my time, but I left some time for interactions. It would be a good idea to have open and sincere discussions on the substance. Sometimes when we discuss this issue I hear different perceptions from my partners and colleagues. Who creates this perception? Sometimes perceptions are created artificially to damage the reputation of Azerbaijan. Let us look at the substance.

On respect for freedoms, I said in my comments that we have media freedom. We have free Internet. How can we restrict media freedom when we have free Internet and no censorship, and when 70% of people are Internet users? There were opposition rallies before and after the presidential elections in October, and they faced no restrictions. Today, if anyone wants to have a rally in three days’ time, with the proper notifications they will have a place in the centre of Azerbaijan.

Only 840 people came to the last opposition rally after the elections – 840 people who did not approve of the presidential elections. The fact that opposition is weak in Azerbaijan does not mean that we are doing anything harmful. What I said about economic and social development cannot be ignored. Anyone who comes to Azerbaijan and sees the development will understand that such enormous economic growth cannot be ignored by our society. People support what we are doing. They support our government. Our government is strong not because we suppress anyone, but because we do things properly.

Another point to make is that those who are in opposition today are the people who were in government in 1992-93. They created chaos and were responsible for the occupation and the loss of territories. They provoked the civil war and then they ran away. Some of the young generation in that group are sitting in the gallery. They do not understand, because they do not know what happened in 1992 and 1993. It is not their fault, but they have just been misled. We are therefore ready to engage in such round table discussions with your participation.

The PRESIDENT – I propose that we take a group of three questions to be answered together. I call Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The fight against violations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights all over Europe is a high priority for this Assembly. Do you recognise LGBT rights as a part of fundamental human rights? If so, what will the Republic of Azerbaijan do to secure such rights and the freedom of organisation?

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – Do you think that the arbitrary ill treatment inflicted upon Leyla Yunus, an outstanding personality involved in defending human rights in Azerbaijan, is of such a nature to convince the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that Azerbaijan is respecting the internationally recognised fundamental freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights?

Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The number of violent incidents on Azerbaijan’s borders has increased significantly in recent times. We read almost every day of casualties and injuries, with civilians among them. Do you agree that we should encourage the parties to adhere strictly to the cease-fire and implement the security measures proposed by the Minsk Group of co-chairs as soon as possible, with the withdrawal of snipers and independent investigation of incidents?

Mr ALIYEV – The rights of all groups of people are provided for in Azerbaijan; there are no restrictions. As I said, the situation with freedoms is no different from that in your country.

With respect to the so-called mistreatment of Leyla Yunus, I disagree because there was no mistreatment of her. In fact, there was probably mistreatment on her behalf towards the policeman who she verbally and physically attacked. She was trying to escape when she was asked to give evidence for a criminal investigation. She was stopped and invited to give evidence as a witness, but unfortunately she has refused for several weeks and ignores the legitimate request to present any information she may have.

On incidents on the border, the issue raised is one that I always hear from the Minsk Group co-chairs about security and confidence-building measures. Sometimes the distance between Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers is 50 metres, so you do not need a sniper to do something harmful. The best way to establish confidence-building measures is for the occupying Armenian troops to start withdrawing from Azerbaijani territories. The casualties referred to are in the occupied Azerbaijani territories – they do not happen in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is also an Azerbaijani territory. Most of the soldiers are recruited in Armenia – what are they doing in the occupied territories? The removal of our forces is therefore not acceptable – how then would we protect our land from further attacks?

The Armenian leadership needs to realise that its policy on Nagorno-Karabakh failed; it lost the battle with Azerbaijan. According to Armenian statistics, the level of poverty in Armenia is more than 40% and in the first quarter of the year 40 000 citizens left Armenia for ever – they will never come back. That is as a result of the occupation policy, and now the Armenian leadership complains wherever it can that Azerbaijan poses a threat. However, we are the country with occupied territories: it poses a threat to us and to the whole region. The sooner it realises that Azerbaijan will never agree to the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, the sooner the conflict will be resolved and the sooner Armenian people will start to have better lives.

The PRESIDENT – We will have the next three questions. First is from Mr Flynn.

Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) – Politicians and journalists have been falsely accused and imprisoned in Azerbaijan and elections have been rigged: I have spoken to the people involved. Can we look forward to a year in which Azerbaijan raises its standards to Council of Europe levels, or will we have a year in which the deplorable example of Azerbaijan encourages other nations to degrade their own human rights standards?

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – You have many neighbours in your region and you play a key role in energy and stability just as Israel does in the Middle East. What are the energy and stability risks for the immediate future?

Ms LOKLINDT (Denmark) – You explained that all freedoms are respected in Azerbaijan. However, we know from the international media that many thousands of people are still internally displaced. How are you dealing with that challenge?

Mr ALIYEV – In the first short question, you lied twice and I will prove it. Listen to me: journalists are not imprisoned in Azerbaijan. Since 2009, no one has been in prison because of defamation. The second lie is that elections are rigged. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe sent a delegation to observe the elections. You are probably not aware of its report. If so, check with your colleagues, because they were positive in their assessment of the Azerbaijan elections. There were more than 1 000 international observers and several exit polls were held by international organisations that all supported, or did not differ from, the official results.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s delegation provided a positive report that was approved here. The European Parliament also sent a delegation and its report was positive. The Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE also sent a delegation that was positive about the result. Why are you lying? The elections were free and fair and these institutions prove that.

Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) – But 58% of your ballot boxes were stuffed.

Mr ALIYEV – That probably happens in your country.

On energy security, Azerbaijan is playing its role in contributing to energy security. I did not raise this issue today because I wanted to allow more time for discussions, but it is something that we take seriously. We have already achieved full energy security for Azerbaijan because we have diversified supply routes for our oil and gas. We are now working to help provide some European countries with their energy security. Today some of the member States of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe get about 40% of their oil from Azerbaijan. Now we have launched a huge gas distribution project, which will allow Azerbaijan to be a gas exporter to Europe. As you correctly mentioned in your question, energy security and political stability and security must be addressed as a package. Therefore the new gas infrastructure project, which will be the biggest infrastructure project in Europe, is being implemented now, with a total investment of at least €45 billion. That is the biggest contribution that Azerbaijan will make to the energy security of Europe.

      The questioner from Denmark touched on the issue of internally displaced persons. If I understand correctly, you mean the persons who suffered from the Armenian occupation?

      Ms LOKLINDT (Denmark) – There are many kinds of displaced people.

      Mr ALIEV – We have more than 1 million refugees and internally displaced people, including 250 000 Azerbaijanis who were expelled from Armenia, 700 000 Azerbaijanis who were expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh and seven districts of Azerbaijan, and refugees from wars in other countries. We are trying to do our best to improve the living standards of these people, but it takes a lot of time and funds. Every year, we resettle more than 20 000 IDPs, we have built 82 settlements and 40 000 families have been provided with flats or houses. But we will need additional time and money to satisfy the needs of all of them.

      The PRESIDENT – Will you agree to answer three more questions, Mr President? The next question is from Mr Japaridze.

      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – I wish Azerbaijan a successful and productive chairmanship. You talked about conflicts and, as you know, Georgia is plagued with the same kind of problems. You also talked about economic developments and my question is about regional co-operation. Azerbaijan is one of the driving forces of these projects along with Turkey and Georgia.

      Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I was strongly surprised by your men-only delegation. For the sake of equality of men and women, I must ask this question. Azerbaijan is 99th out of 136 countries on the global gender gap index – a terrible position. What is your government doing to implement the full equality of men and women and when will you sign and ratify the Istanbul Convention?

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – First, I want to ask about the reinforcement of the GUAM organisation, because all four members of that organisation have suffered territorially from Russian invasion. Secondly, Azerbaijan has the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, and our colleague Mustapha Dzhemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatars, cannot come back to his home in Crimea because of a ban by Russia. Could you assist him to get back home?

      Mr ALIEV – On the issue raised by Mr Japaridze, I can say that trilateral co-operation on energy, and now on transportation, between Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan has already resulted in serious geopolitical change in our region, because our three countries last month had their first ever summit at heads of State level in Tbilisi. Political, economic and energy co-operation between the three countries is important not only for us, but for the region. Together we play a stabilising role, especially with respect to energy security issues.

The first geopolitical change was the construction of the oil pipeline Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, which connected the Caspian with the Mediterranean for the first time. Now we are implementing other projects, the Trans-Anatolian pipeline, the South Caucasus pipeline and the Trans-Adriatic pipeline, from Baku through Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Albania, Italy and Bulgaria. They will also cover many other countries. We are also implementing an important railway project, Baku-Tbilisi-Kars, which will connect Asia and Europe. Stability in our countries is the main prerequisite for the successful development of the situation in the region. Therefore, we highly value our bilateral relations with Georgia and Turkey, and we will continue to develop that co-operation actively.

It is strange to hear Azerbaijan accused over gender inequality. Our country has great traditions, and when the first Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan was established in 1918, one of the first decrees gave women the right to vote. It was probably much earlier than when that happened in your country. Women in Azerbaijan today enjoy the same rights and privileges, and they participate actively in political life. You should not look only at these men here as the members of our delegation. Other representatives from Azerbaijan include prominent women parliamentarians – they are here today. There are no restrictions, and indeed I did not look at my team from the point of view of how many men or women it had, because they enjoy equal rights. Azerbaijan already has a law on gender equality and a family code, and we are now reviewing the Istanbul Convention to which we do not have any objections. If you visit Baku, you will see for yourselves that women enjoy the same rights, and we are glad about that.

GUAM’s activity or non-activity largely depends on the position of the Ukrainians. In my experience of that format for co-operation, we have had times when the Ukrainian Government has been very pro-GUAM and times when it has been very anti-GUAM. Therefore it is very difficult for us – and, I am sure, our Georgian and Moldovan colleagues – to plan a long-term strategy for the development of the organisation. We will therefore wait for positive signals from Ukraine in order for GUAM to become active again, as it was before.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr President, for your speech and for your answers to the questions from colleagues.

      (The speaker continued in translation.)

I remind colleagues that the poll for the election of the Secretary General is closed for now. It will resume this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. Those of you who have not yet voted will have an opportunity to do so between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m.

I also remind colleagues that speaking time this afternoon will be limited to three minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

4. Next public business

The PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m., with the agenda that was approved.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of Secretary General of the Council of Europe

2. Joint Debate

Presentation by Ms Strik of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, “The ‘left-to-die boat’: actions and reactions”, Document 13532

Presentation by Mr Chope of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, “The large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows on Italian shores”, Document 13531

Speakers: Dame Angela Watkinson (United Kingdom), Mr Stroe (Romania), Mr Jónasson (Iceland), Mr Schennach (Austria) and Ms Pipili (Greece)

Reply: Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Speakers: Ms Amtsberg (Germany), Mr Mayer (Austria), Ms Blanco (Spain), Ms O. Mitchell (Ireland), Mr Selvi (Turkey), Mr Heer (Switzerland), Ms Santerini (Italy), Mr Nicoletti (Italy) Ms Bakoyannis (Greece) and Ms Antičević Marinović (Croatia)

Replies: Ms Strik (Netherlands), Mr Chope (United Kingdom) and Mr Mariani (France)

Amendment 1 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13532, as amended, adopted

Amendment 2 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13532, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13531 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13531 adopted

3. Address by Mr Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan

Questions: Mr McNamara (Ireland), Ms Bakoyannis (Greece), the Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom), Mr Xuclà (Spain), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Rochebloine (France), Mr Fiala (Switzerland), Mr Flynn (United Kingdom), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Ms Loklindt (Denmark), Mr Japaridze (Georgia), Mr Biedroń (Poland) and Mr Ariev (Ukraine)

4. Next public sitting

Appendix I

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*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/Maryvonne Blondin

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA/Eduard Shalsi

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/ Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ/ Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI/Anna Ascani

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Tina Acketoft

Elena CENTEMERO

Lorenzo CESA/Milena Santerini

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Luis Alberto Orellana

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE/Olivia Mitchell

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO/Ferdinando Aiello

Jonny CROSIO/Giuseppe Galati

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Milena DAMYANOVA

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Armand De DECKER/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß/Gabriela Heinrich

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Nadezda GERASIMOVA*

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR

Gergely GULYÁS/Bence Tuzson

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID/Mustafa Karadayi

Mike HANCOCK/Charles Kennedy

Margus HANSON

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH/Johann Wadephul

Martin HENRIKSEN/Sophie Løhde

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marc Spautz

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE

Igor IVANOVSKI/Imer Aliu

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT

Gediminas JAKAVONIS*

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ

Josip JURATOVIC

Antti KAIKKONEN

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Deniza KARADJOVA

Marietta KARAMANLI/Gérard Terrier

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/ Łukasz Zbonikowski

Serhii KIVALOV

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Alev KORUN/Nikolaus Scherak

Elena KOUNTOURA

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Astrid KRAG

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD/Philippe Bies

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

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

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/André Reichardt

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ/ Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Lev MYRYMSKYI/Andriy Shevchenko

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Marian NEACŞU*

Zsolt NÉMETH*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/ Paul Flynn

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS/Olena Kondratiuk

Sandra OSBORNE

Aleksandra OSTERMAN*

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Linda Riordan

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS/Rait Maruste

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Indrek SAAR

Vincenzo SANTANGELO

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Laura SEARA/Alejandro Alonso

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Olga-Nantia VALAVANI/Vasiliki Katrivanou

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI/Silva Caka

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Imre VEJKEY/ Rózsa Hoffmann

Mark VERHEIJEN/Tineke Strik

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Vladimir VORONIN/Constantin Staris

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH/ Grzegorz Czelej

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Tobias ZECH/Volkmar Vogel

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Marek Černoch

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Pascale Crozon

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Christian BARILARO

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Hans Fredrik GRØVAN

Barbara ROSENKRANZ

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Dimitrios SALTOUROS

Baroness Judith WILCOX

Observers

Sean CASEY

Corneliu CHISU

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Michel RIVARD

Jorge Iván VILLALOBOS SEÁÑEZ

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Hassan BOUHRIZ

Nezha EL OUAFI

El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

Omar HEJIRA

Bernard SABELLA

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Tahsin ERTUĞRULOĞLU

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the Secretary General

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Volodymyr ARIEV

Danielle AUROI/Maryvonne Blondin

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

Taulant BALLA/Eduard Shalsi

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET/Bernadette Bourzai

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Mladen BOSIĆ/ Ismeta Dervoz

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI/Anna Ascani

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Nunzia CATALFO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Tina Acketoft

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Luis Alberto Orellana

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE/Olivia Mitchell

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO/Ferdinando Aiello

Jonny CROSIO/Giuseppe Galati

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Milena DAMYANOVA

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Armand De DECKER/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Reha DENEMEÇ

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI/ Mihai-Viorel Fifor

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß/Gabriela Heinrich

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Lady Diana ECCLES

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL

Bernd FABRITIUS

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR

Gergely GULYÁS/Bence Tuzson

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Hamid HAMID/Mustafa Karadayi

Mike HANCOCK/Charles Kennedy

Margus HANSON

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH/Johann Wadephul

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marc Spautz

Adam HOFMAN

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Florin IORDACHE

Denis JACQUAT/ Damien Abad

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Frank J. JENSSEN/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ

Josip JURATOVIC

Antti KAIKKONEN

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Deniza KARADJOVA

Marietta KARAMANLI/Gérard Terrier

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/ Łukasz Zbonikowski

Serhii KIVALOV

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Alev KORUN/Nikolaus Scherak

Elena KOUNTOURA

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Astrid KRAG

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Christophe LÉONARD/Philippe Bies

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

George LOUKAIDES

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Jean-Claude MIGNON/André Reichardt

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ/ Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Lev MYRYMSKYI/Andriy Shevchenko

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Michele NICOLETTI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS/Olena Kondratiuk

Sandra OSBORNE

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Linda Riordan

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Mailis REPS/Rait Maruste

Eva RICHTROVÁ

François ROCHEBLOINE

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Indrek SAAR

Vincenzo SANTANGELO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Laura SEARA/Alejandro Alonso

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Björn von SYDOW

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI/Silva Caka

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Vladimir VORONIN/Constantin Staris

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH/ Grzegorz Czelej

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Katrin WERNER/ Annette Groth

Gisela WURM

Tobias ZECH/Volkmar Vogel

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Marek Černoch

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Pascale Crozon

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN