AA15CR16

AS (2015) CR 16

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Sixteenth sitting

Thursday 23 April 2015 at 10.00 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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

5.       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.)

1. Speaking time limits

      The PRESIDENT* – In order to allow as many speakers as possible to speak, I propose a time limit of three minutes for speeches in both the debates this morning.

      Is that agreed?

      It is agreed.

2. Debate under urgent procedure; draft additional protocol to the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “Draft Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism” (Documents 13763 and 13753) presented by Lord Tomlinson on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      In order to finish by 10.55 a.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 10.50 a.m. to allow time for replies and votes.

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

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – This is clearly not the hottest ticket in town this morning, but perhaps we will get a few drifters later on.

      On 15 April, barely a week ago, the Committee of Ministers invited the Assembly to provide it with an opinion on the draft additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, with the request that this be done during the April part-session. Last Monday the Assembly referred that request to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and on Tuesday the committee adopted the opinion on the basis of my report. To do this in such a short time reflects great credit on those in the Secretariat for not only the work they did and the speed with which they did it but their willingness to start the days early and finish late in order to get it completed.

      The draft additional protocol is a response to the increasing phenomenon of so-called foreign terrorist fighters. In September 2014, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2178 aimed at preventing and curbing this phenomenon and obliging States to criminalise certain conduct that might be related to the commission of terrorist offences, such as travelling abroad for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. The draft additional protocol aimed to implement the United Nations Security Council resolution and was elaborated within a period of two months, shortly after the dreadful terrorist attacks in Paris.

      As the Assembly might remember, I was Rapporteur on Human Rights and Combating Terrorism in this committee, and on the basis of my report, the Assembly adopted Resolution1840 of 2011, in which I stressed that States must be in a position to take appropriate measures to fight terrorism, but that there is no need for a trade-off between human rights and effective counter-terrorist action. Sufficient safeguards exist in international human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, that allow for flexible responses to emergencies threatening societies.

      I draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly the words of the our former colleague Dick Marty, who stressed on many occasions that terrorists should be treated as “normal criminals” and that efforts to combat organised crime should be strengthened in order to eradicate the sources, including the financial ones, of terrorist behaviour.

      That is why I do not see a particular need to expand the current legal framework on combating terrorism. But in the light of what is written in the draft explanatory report to the draft additional protocol, I consider that there are sufficient safeguards in the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism that shall apply between States parties if the draft additional protocol is adopted. Moreover, implementation of the protocol will depend on states parties transposing it into their national criminal law, if need be.

      During the process of the elaboration of the draft additional protocol, some prominent international non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, expressed clearly their concerns about the potential negative impact of that text on human rights such as the freedom of movement, the presumption of innocence and legal certainty, and about the unclear applicability of international humanitarian law in the case of terrorist fighters. I am fully aware of their concerns. Thus, my report proposes some amendments further to strengthen the human rights safeguards in the draft additional protocol – this is in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the preliminary draft opinion – and to clarify the relation between it and Convention 196, which I do in paragraph 6.4 of the preliminary draft opinion. Moreover, in paragraph 6.1 of the preliminary draft opinion I propose to include a reference to the Assembly’s opinion in the preamble.

      This report has been presented at the Joint Committee to the Committee of Ministers and there was no comment from those there about it. I present it to the Assembly for your support, and I thank you for your attention.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Tomlinson, for your presentation and for the work you did, together with the staff of the committee, in a very short time. I shall now call the speakers on behalf of the political groups. The first speaker is Mr Jónasson, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – Let me begin by thanking Lord Tomlinson for his presentation. We have heard, and read in this report, about why these proposals are before us. They stem from a Security Council resolution made in September last year on ways and means of combating terrorism. Consequently, moves are being made to change laws in Council of Europe States to criminalise acts and movements of people suspected of being engaged in terrorist activities. I believe we all agree on this in principle, but it is the practice, not the principle, that poses the difficulties. That is why we had an intervention by the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Nils Muižnieks, who expressed his concerns about ensuring that the duty of States to prevent and combat terrorism is carefully balanced with a duty to protect and uphold human rights and the rule of law.

      The Commissioner for Human Rights further underlined the need for legal clarity and precision in criminal law instruments. Our task is therefore to see whether we have succeeded in this endeavour, and I have my doubts about that. We are dealing with some very unclear and subjective phrases, such as States being allowed to adopt “measures as may be necessary”; there is also a reference to the principle of proportionality. Those things are open to interpretation.

      Defining “terrorism” is also difficult. We are all aware of the military drone attacks, which have killed many innocent people. Communities that have been hit by such attacks see their attackers as terrorists and terrorist states, but the Council of Europe would not go along with defining the United States as a “terrorist State”. I also draw your attention to the fact that in Council of Europe papers separatists in Ukraine are defined as “terrorists” and that communication with them is therefore to be seen as questionable.

      I wish also to mention one example from my country, Iceland. We had an economic crash in 2008 and in October that year the British Government decided to take down the largest Icelandic bank operating in Great Britain. However, this involved the difficulty of legality, so the British Government came up with a watertight solution: it defined Iceland as a terrorist state. We were put on an official list, together with Al-Qaeda and North Korea, as terrorists. I mention that only in order to throw light on the dangers in extending our legal borders when it comes to the criminalisation of terrorism.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Jónasson. I now give the floor to Mr Franken, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – We are all concerned with the horrible results of terrorist attacks that have taken place in our member States during the past years. We fully understand that strong counter-measures have to be taken and that we have to make the utmost effort to prevent new acts of terrorism. But we also have to respect in our community several basic human rights which have to be taken into account when criminals are being punished and illegal acts are being suppressed. In order to find the delicate balance between those two main interests in individual cases we have several legal instruments. These are embedded in the European Convention on Human Rights and several humanitarian law codifications, but our Commissioner for Human Rights asked for more legal clarity and precision, especially in the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. So we have before us the result of rapid, adequate action that seeks to provide more clarity with a draft additional protocol to this convention.

      The document mainly adds some provisions on the criminalisation of certain acts related to terrorist offences: participating in an association or group for the purpose of terrorism; receiving training for terrorism; travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism; and funding and organising or facilitating travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism. It is our task to check whether these proposals have a potential negative impact on fundamental freedoms and human rights. In that context, we must consider: the presumption of innocence; the relation between preparatory acts and the criminal deed; legal certainty; freedom of movement; the applicability of international humanitarian law; and the separation between situations of peace and war.

      I believe that the proposed texts sufficiently address both sides of the balance, but that some points have to be elaborated further. I believe also that the rapporteur made relevant proposals on this issue. Given that these proposals will be incorporated in the text of the additional protocol, the Group of the European People’s Party will support the new rules, which will provide an opportunity to combat terrorism more effectively while having regard to the human rights at stake. I wish to thank the rapporteur and express the serious wish that the Committee of Ministers will follow the opinion of the Assembly as quickly as possible.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Franken. I now give the floor to Mr Díaz Tejera, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – It is an honour to be addressing the Assembly on behalf of the Socialist Group in order to convey to you a couple of ideas. My first concern is about whether the text presented by Lord Tomlinson on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights reasserts all the work that has been done by the Council of Europe.

      When we go back to our national parliaments, we have a task before us – to convey our values and ensure that the judicial authorities consider the matter. We need to ensure that we reassert all the work that the Council of Europe has done for human rights and the rule of law, whether in this report or others. That is the very raison d’être of our Organisation, and the report achieves that. It reasserts the importance of human rights and the rule of law, and the role of the Council of Europe. It is about concrete values, and it refers to earlier Council of Europe texts and well-established doctrine about preventing terrorism.

      My second concern is about what might occur if a criminal organisation gains some control in a place such as France – say, if a group of 1 000 armed people receives thousands or millions of dollars, or if a group subjects not only youngsters but mature women to genital mutilation and tyranny. How are our societies supposed to react to such tremendous challenges? We all need to give serious thought to what is happening and try to find the best possible way of combating such crime, but in doing so we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, we live in democracies, which means that we are duty-bound to support human rights. That is reflected in the report, so I congratulate Lord Tomlinson and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We will be only too happy to vote in favour of the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Taktakishvili, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – On behalf of my group, I sincerely thank Lord Tomlinson and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for their work in fighting for the defence of European citizens’ freedoms and rights. It is good practice for the Assembly to be consulted when our Organisation develops international legal instruments, and it is important to note that no amendments have been proposed to the report, demonstrating that we all fully support it.

      Nevertheless, it must be said that we do not see any particular need to adopt a new additional protocol, as Lord Tomlinson has said. We believe that law enforcement institutions could better exploit existing instruments, and that the European Convention on Human Rights provides sufficient guarantees to safeguard the rights and freedoms of citizens. However, if it has been decided to adopt an additional protocol, it is important that it makes specific reference, as Lord Tomlinson suggested, to the necessity of safeguarding the right to a fair trial for all people charged with terrorist acts. It is also important that the definitions that we adopt are clear enough to allow legal certainty for citizens who face the possibility of criminal prosecutions.

      We must remember that we have two kinds of member States in the Council of Europe – ones that support human rights fully, and ones that are unfortunately still under monitoring and post-monitoring. Countries are under those procedures because the authorities do not fully respect the right to a fair trial and other basic freedoms. My country, Georgia, is one of those under monitoring procedures. Unfortunately, every time repressive new legislation is developed, it is used selectively against opposition activists. A criminal case has been initiated against my political party, which is the major opposition party, for “subversive acts” against the State. Unfortunately, that is the reality in a number of member States, where members of the opposition are jailed for their publicly expressed opinions, which are often critical of the government. Unfortunately, non-governmental organisations are also accused of subversive acts against the government, so we can imagine how the government will use new prohibitions on the freedom of movement or expression, relating to terrorist acts, against voices critical to it. We fully support the report and call on the Assembly to vote in favour of it.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his well-written, concise and clear report, and I fully support his proposed amendments to the draft additional protocol.

      The draft additional protocol is a necessary legal instrument that will update member States’ efforts to combat terrorism while respecting the rules. Domestically, it will also help member States update certain important provisions of the criminal law. It also reflects an international obligation set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178, which was adopted last September in New York. The resolution implies certain clear legal obligations on States, especially in the field of combating foreign terrorist fighters. The protocol, the legal opinion and the rapporteur’s proposed amendments together achieve the proper balance between combating terrorism and respecting fundamental rights and liberties and the guarantees set out clearly in the European Convention on Human Rights.

      On the impact of the draft additional protocol at member State level, I invoke the example of my own country, Romania, because what we are discussing today is extremely relevant to our domestic legal debates. Especially in the past year, the Romanian competent authorities in national security and intelligence have had to deal with a number of cases of individuals coming from outside the country and trying to develop networks to spread ideologies such as that of ISIS or finance international terrorism. Of course, the competent authorities have taken the appropriate measures, and the national courts have had to respect the rules and take clear decisions.

      Last year, parliament adopted new legislation on data retention and pre-paid mobile phone cards, which related to the draft European Union directive. The constitutional court declared that legislation unconstitutional, so we now have a blockage. The legislation needs to be updated, and the new protocol will help our debate. I am sure that it will relaunch the search for new legislation that will combat terrorism while respecting the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – Terrorism is a threat to life, and the right to life is the highest value that we have in our human rights. It is very important that we try to prevent terrorism; it is not enough that we punish terrorists after a crime has been committed. It is very important that the Council of Europe has this draft additional protocol, because we are a human rights organisation and we have the competence to strike the balance between human rights and the attempt to find a solution to terrorism.

      It is also very important that we harmonise European rules and give guidance to all member States. For example, in my own country of Finland, we adopted these rules six months ago. Harmonisation is very important.

      The report and the amendments have been well prepared. The timetable is not a problem, because there is a lot of knowledge in member States on this issue and we cannot delay implementation of the rules.

      However, legally these are quite complicated questions, because in terrorism the deed is very far from the preparation, which causes problems. Unfortunately, that means that rules must be quite flexible; it is difficult to make them very precise.

      The changes proposed by Lord Tomlinson are very good indeed. It is important to emphasise to the courts that the presumption of innocence is always vital and that consideration of human rights requires that the interpretation of the rules must be narrow, so that the human rights of the defendant are taken into consideration. We must follow how the courts interpret these rules in member States and if we see that there are problems with the interpretation we can propose changes to these amendments, to try to guarantee more effectively the defendant’s human rights.

      The problem is that there is no definition of the word “terrorism”. I know that it is very difficult to define terrorism, but we need some kind of academic work that will be intensive and extensive, to try to define the word somehow. Once that has been achieved, member States can try to use that definition. Of course it would be best if it was the Council of Europe that implemented that definition of terrorism in our own rules to begin with, and then member States could adopt our rules.

      Ms KORENJAK KRAMAR (Slovenia) – Slovenia was highly active in the negotiations on the draft additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. A specific update of the international criminal legal framework to combat terrorism is desirable, because to some extent a uniform regulatory approach allows for better prosecutions and better cross-border exchange of evidence, and eases police and administrative co-operation. On the other hand, the pan-European approach means that there must be adequate guidance on the standard of legality in criminal law, the principle of proportionality and human rights.

      Slovenia managed to assert its position. With the draft additional protocol, the Council of Europe has also proved that with intensive work it is possible to produce an adequate legal mechanism in a very short time.

      The draft additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism is a suitable basis for the different parties to adopt a unified approach to tackle the otherwise challenging area of terrorism, particularly the concept of the so-called foreign terrorist fighters, which was introduced by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 in 2014. The draft additional protocol also gives appropriate weight to respect for fundamental human rights, the principle of legality, the presumption of innocence and the principle of proportionality. Therefore, Slovenia suggests that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe delivers a favourable opinion of it to the Committee of Ministers.

      Mr GOLUB (Ukraine) – The issue of the prevention of terrorism is becoming more and more urgent. Terrorism, like society, is now changing and adjusting. Before, terrorism was merely limited to some individual actions; then, it spread out into organised terrorist structures within a State; and now terrorism does not have any borders and is involved with all types of international crime.

      I thank Lord Tomlinson for his great efforts in producing this draft additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. However, I believe that we have omitted reference to an issue that has arisen recently as never before – that of a State that is a terrorist. In my own country, it can be seen that the Russian Federation provides financial, military and other aid to terrorist organisations such as the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. The most obvious example of the terrorist plot of the Russian Federation is the forced annexation of Crimea. Therefore, all international treaties should set out that anyone providing aid to a terrorist is also a terrorist. We all remember that Nazi Germany was a clear example of a terrorist State. And what did that result in? It resulted in international terrorism.

      That is why we need to resolve this issue. We need to implement a proper mechanism to fight terrorist States and to establish their responsibility for terrorism, including a level of sanctions for the government of a State that promotes terrorism.

      The draft additional protocol has been well produced, but in my opinion we must elaborate further on the issue I referred to in my speech.

      Thank you very much for your attention.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – Our Assembly is called upon to give its opinion on a particularly important text, which is the draft additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism; the convention was produced on 16 May 2005. It is a question of implementing the provisions of Resolution 2178 of the United Nations Security Council, which was produced on 24 September 2014. That resolution essentially concerns the prevention of terrorism and the prosecution of foreign terrorist fighters.

      The draft additional protocol that we are considering provides for the establishment of a 24/7 network between the parties to the protocol to provide immediate assistance in inquiries and procedures linked to terrorism matters. I welcome the fact that it offers an opportunity to deepen relations between our organisation and the European Union, because the Council of Europe’s convention and the draft additional protocol are closely linked to the framework decision of the European Union to combat terrorism, which was produced in 2002 and updated in 2008. I wish to point out that the European Union has exclusive competence to deal with additional protocols, because we want to avoid a situation whereby joint rules would be affected by negotiations outside the institutional framework of the European Union. I remind you that pursuant to protocols 21 and 22 of the Treaty of the European Union, the draft additional protocol will bind all member States, with the exception of Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland, unless those member States notify the European Union of their desire to participate in its adoption and application.

      Generally speaking, international criminal justice co-operation is essential to ensure that there is effective repression of the jihadist phenomenon. The committee of inquiry that recently submitted its report to the French Senate wanted a strengthening of co-operation at European level, particularly with non-member States of the European Union, to strengthen bilateral conventions. The development of Eurojust has encountered several obstacles, particularly the minimum concept of co-operation. That means that some member States have only engaged in minimal exchange of information and co-operation with regard to criminal and terrorist crimes, providing limited access to their dossiers. Furthermore, countries should be encouraged to sign the mutual legal assessment accord on criminal matters. We should strengthen initiatives to combat terrorism, and I welcome the French Senate’s role in adopting the Paris Declaration on 30 March.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pozzo di Borgo. That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur, Lord Tomlinson. You have seven minutes left.

      LORD TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I thank everybody who has participated in this short debate. There have been slight differences of emphasis, but many can be clearly explained by the fact that the protocol is a statement of broad principles; its implementation will depend on States parties transposing it into their national legislation. It is not a question of “one size fits all”.

      All the criticisms of the draft additional protocol are covered by the four amendments suggested by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The first, to the preamble, invites the Council of Ministers to have regard to the Assembly’s opinion, while the second adds the following words to Article 1: “and their obligations under international human rights law”. That takes into account the position of members who have reminded us of what the Commissioner for Human Rights said. The third amendment is to Article 8, paragraph 1: after the words “in particular” add “the right to a fair trial, the principle of legal certainty,” and after the words “the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” add “and its Additional Protocols”. Some of the perceived deficiencies in the text are covered by the amendments.

      I hope that the Committee of Ministers reads not what I have said – it heard all that yesterday – but what Assembly members have said today. The broad basis of their comments should be a guide to what action the Committee of Ministers takes after it deliberates on this issue next month. I thank everyone who has spoken. There is unanimity inside the Assembly. I commend the report to the Assembly, with thanks to everyone who has participated.

      I should like to make one more comment. I agreed with everything that Mr Jónasson said until he came to the Icelandic bank crash. I will not reply to his point, but I urge him to go back to the debate that Icelandic members secured in this Assembly and read the speech that I made then. I was speaking not as a rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, but as a member of the British delegation with a perspective somewhat different from Mr Jónasson’s on who was culpable for that crash. I am not raising the issue now because everything else said in this debate has shown great common sense and wisdom.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does the chairperson of the committee, Mr Clappison, wish to speak?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I want to put on the record our appreciation of Lord Tomlinson’s work and to say that the committee strongly supports his proposals.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft opinion to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft opinion contained in Document 13763. A two thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

3. Debate under urgent procedure: The human tragedy in the Mediterranean: immediate action needed

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “The human tragedy in the Mediterranean: immediate action needed” in Document 13764, presented by Mr Thierry Mariani on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      So that we finish by 1 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 12.30 p.m. to allow time for replies and votes. Many speakers are on the list. I urge everyone to stick to the speaking time of a maximum three minutes so that as many colleagues as possible can have their say.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Our committee worked quickly, as we did not have much time. We tried to do everything possible to ensure that this was not just another report. We are all experiencing this tragedy – every week, several hundred people lose their lives while trying to cross the Mediterranean. It behoves us to act. It would seem appropriate to have a minute’s silence for each individual life lost, although that would still not be enough.

      Europe has to be generous, but we cannot simply open up our countries to all those who are driven by poverty or war to emigrate. In the report, we have tried to put forward a few proposals, including longer-term ones such as the implementation of co-development measures. However, it is clear from the current European Council meeting that urgent measures are needed. My report mentions some that could be taken, such as the destruction of the boats used by the smugglers. Mr di Stefano proposes that the Schengen regulations be reviewed because the countries in the front line, such as Italy, Greece, Turkey and Malta, are isolated and not always shown the European solidarity that should be offered to them. There really is a shortcoming in the European Union’s actions. The Mare Nostrum campaign, funded essentially by Italy, made it possible to some extent and for some time to deal with the problem in the Mediterranean. However, that operation was replaced with an EU operation for which the resources made available were not really commensurate with the needs. All of that shows that we really must urge the EU to be more active on this issue, which is no doubt the major challenge that confronts it on its southern border.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mariani. I call Mr Vitsas, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr VITSAS (Greece)* – International co-operation, realism, human rights and early warning are the key words with respect to this issue. We have heard from the United Nations that, in 2014, a man, woman or child was added to the lengthening list of refugees every four seconds. They are not just figures, because there are human lives behind them and our Mediterranean, our sea of civilisation, is becoming a watery grave for many of them.

      I remember what the Mayor of Lampedusa said: “How big does the cemetery of my island have to be?” That is becoming a problem for many local authorities, because many people are dying, and what can we do, really? It is clear that the European Union’s migration policy is insufficient, ineffective and even dangerous. The policy has simply failed to achieve its objectives. The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean cannot continue to receive, house and feed all the people whom they forcibly receive on a daily basis.

      Perhaps there are solutions. Some people talk about final solutions and the extremist, Nazi-oriented parties are growing in strength because of this phenomenon. The ineffectiveness of our policies is clear because we are simply unable to stem the wave of immigrants.

      A European Union summit meeting is being held today with a view to talking about new search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. Obviously, assistance for the so-called front-line countries will have to be forthcoming. Various proposals are being put forward to combat the human traffickers who continue to bring refugees to Europe and to increase avenues for legal migration.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I do not see Mr Correia, so I call Mr Nicoletti on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – The terrible drama of the deaths in the Mediterranean in the past few days has confronted us with what we already knew but were trying not to see. In other words, we are facing the worst humanitarian tragedy since the Second World War. In the future, people will ask us what we – those who sit in national parliaments and this Assembly – were doing while this event was going on in the places where, as far as citizens are concerned, decisions taken on their behalf are made. We must provide an immediate response that is much stronger than what we have done hitherto. It would be dire if all people heard from Strasbourg and Brussels in these few days is words. We need action at all levels and statements to start with.

      We cannot allow this demon of totalitarian hate and indifference. Human society is based biologically on caring, not indifference. Those who are indifferent say that living or dying is the same thing, but we want there to be a difference between life and death and not just for us, but for all human beings. All of our oldest moral traditions are based on the principle of a lack of indifference to your neighbour. Indeed, it is a crime to allow people to die. It is also a crime to fail to help people in distress in our regimes and we cannot just leave people to die.

      There must be a legal reaction. European civilisation is based on the right to asylum, which is just as important as the right to citizenship. That is part of the oldest, centuries-long tradition, based on the most beautiful parts of the enlightenment and handed down to form part of our constitutions. However, we still do not have a European asylum system even though the European Commission called for one in the 2010 Stockholm action plan.

      We need a political reaction as well. We must fight the human traffickers, who have every interest in speculating on the lives and deaths of these people and treat them as something to be exploited. We need a Marshall Plan for economic and social co-operation between Europe and North Africa – the same thing the West did for Europe way back – to help the transition to democracy after the fall of totalitarian regimes. We need social and economic aid; otherwise we will not be able to respond to this tragedy. I hope that there will be a strong movement on that from the Chamber.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Fiala, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur on behalf of the ALDE Group for the draft resolution. The terrible, dramatic situation in Europe’s waters requires all of us to work on helping to alleviate the humanitarian situation. There has been such an increase in the number of deaths recently. The Dublin Treaty, which had seemed to be serving us well, should have stopped asylum shopping and protected unaccompanied minors and so on. However, it is with great pain that we must now admit that border countries such as Malta, Italy, Spain and all those along the southern shores are very much overburdened. Those societies cannot cope with the influx.

      There has been such an increase in the numbers of refugees. In the past two years, half of those arriving from the Mediterranean have come from Syria or Eritrea, although there are of course another 38 countries are also involved.

      In 2004, about 210 000 refugees tried to get across the Mediterranean, 170 000 ended up in Italy and 3 500 drowned. The terrible situation in Libya prompts people to try to get across the sea and put themselves in the hands of these irresponsible smugglers, who overload the boats so much. The lack of solidarity of EU countries, the introduction of Triton instead of Mare Nostrum and the lack of resources in terms of money and crew are making things even worse.

      Up to October 2014, more than 36 000 Syrians had come to Italy and 22 000 to Greece. Many more were registered in neighbouring countries. The reasons are partly to do with ISIS. It is trying to infiltrate the flows of refugees, which has led to major concerns about security. In our countries, we must work together, with greater contributions from all member States, to support the search and rescue operations. We need to co-ordinate our actions against the smugglers, review the Dublin Agreement and look for support that is commensurate with the numbers coming over. We need humanitarian aid to be extended, we need administrative and legal assistance, and we need co-operation to be extended with North Africa. Anyone who says yes to globalisation must also say yes to joint global solutions to this issue.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Fiala. The next speaker is Ms Erkal Kara, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – It is terribly sad that these people are losing their lives in the Mediterranean and the humanitarian situation of irregular migrants is of grave concern. Last year, 3 500 people died in the Mediterranean and the figure this year is already up to 1 600. That requires urgent, concerted action to be taken by the international community in order to prevent other humanitarian tragedies.

      Irregular migration is a worldwide problem with worldwide consequences, so we need to adopt a global overall approach with all countries involved and acting. It is obvious that security measures are one of the pillars to combat irregular migration. We need to combat smugglers and traffickers in human beings, and that must be intensified. However, to concentrate only on security measures without attacking the deeper root causes of this migration, such as economic, social and political instability in various conflicts would result in only limited and temporary success. Consequently, a sustainable solution will be found only when we manage to deal with the root economic, political and social causes of irregular migration.

      It is extremely important that the host countries support peace processes in countries affected by conflict and increase their humanitarian and development aid to the countries of origin and the countries of transit in order to raise living standards in those countries. Furthermore, new measures must be adopted to intensify search and rescue operations so that we can avoid further loss of life in the Mediterranean. However, some target countries suggest that responsibility for saving lives must be put on the shoulders of transit countries or front-line countries. That is not only unfair, but it would also not achieve the desired result. Saving and helping these people in distress must be seen as the common responsibility of humanity as a whole.

      As a member of the Turkish delegation, I wish to share some statistics that underscore the seriousness of the challenge that we must meet. In 2014, almost 15 000 irregular migrants and 106 smugglers and traffickers were arrested by the Turkish authorities. In 2015, the Turkish coastguard has already saved 1 500 migrants who were in distress at sea.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Erkal Kara. Does the rapporteur wish to respond at this point? That is not the case, so I call Mr Mota Amaral.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – We are all deeply shocked by what is happening again, as it has in recent years, across the Mediterranean Sea, where a massive movement of desperate people, including women and children, are leaving the African coast in the most precarious conditions to try to reach the beaches of Europe, risking and sometimes losing their lives.

      As Pope Francis said, the Mediterranean is becoming a graveyard, and that shames us all. We should wonder about the situation in the countries of origin of those people that could justify or at least explain the suffering they endure in their attempts to reach Europe. Poverty, illness, famine, all types of violence, persecution and war are destroying the fragile sub-Saharan nations. The collapse of State institutions in Libya provides open frontiers to cross the desert and begin a new adventure at sea. I suspect that most of those people have never seen the sea before; otherwise they would not step foot in the boats used by the unscrupulous smugglers, who need to be brought to court and condemned for their criminal activity.

      It is said that around 1 000 000 men, women and children are preparing to force entrance on to European soil via this adventurous route. We are indeed facing a humanitarian catastrophe. Europe and the international community as a whole must act urgently, and that means now. African regional organisations must be called to duty according to their responsibilities. The Organisation of African Unity cannot remain silent and inactive when the origin of this tragic situation is the failure of some African nations to provide food and security for their population. A solution for the chaos in Libya falls fully under its responsibility.

      The United Nations and its specialised bodies are also challenged by these events. The European Union, assessing the failure of the so-called Barcelona process, is entitled to define a European immigration policy and to provide assistance to those in immediate need. That is what we expect from the meeting of the European Council today in Brussels.

      I praise the courageous attitude of the Italian, Greek and Maltese authorities, who face the crisis directly on their shores. I also praise Turkey for providing a safe harbour for more than 1 000 000 Syrian refugees. In the Council of Europe, an appeal for immediate action in the name of respect for human rights is also a must, as the rapporteur wisely points out – for which I thank him.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mota Amaral. I now call Mr Correia, who was not here when I called the speakers on behalf of the political groups. He speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr CORREIA (Portugal) – Thank you, Madam President. I was on my way to my seat at the time.

      My first point in supporting the present report is to express our condolences for those who lost their lives in these tragic incidents in the Mediterranean. But let us be clear: it is more than a shipwreck we are facing, it is an unprecedented humanitarian tragedy. It is relevant to assume that it is unacceptable to leave the burden and the effort of dealing with this crisis to one nation alone – this is not an Italian problem, but an European, African and global problem. On the other hand, it is also wrong to put all the blame for the present situation on Europe, or on the European Union. In fact, Europe with all its problems and crises is still the dream and the hope of prosperity – the new Eldorado – in whose name these citizens risk their lives, and many lose them. The word to describe what is happening is a strong word: shame. As Pope Francis said after Lampedusa, it is unacceptable that the Mediterranean has become a vast graveyard – a graveyard of human desperation, I would say. He said: “They are men and women like us, our brothers seeking a better life, starving, persecuted, wounded, exploited, victims of war. They were looking for a better life”. He is right.

      That is why the first principle for a solution is humanity: humanity in helping; humanity in rescuing and saving; humanity in integrating those who search, legally, for an opportunity; and humanity in the reunification of families – humanity always. However, we must, at the same time, be rigorous in the protection of borders. There is no simple one-way solution for such a complex problem, but indifference is not acceptable. We must call to action. Co-operation and strong partnership with States on the other side of the Mediterranean is needed. A serious Mediterranean dialogue on development and progress is urgent. We cannot act alone. Promoting peace in Libya is therefore essential.

      Colleagues, we must never forget that we are dealing with criminal organisations: human traffickers, who are comparable only to the slave ships of the past. As the European Union plan points out, there is a need to be firm in fighting against the mafias and smugglers, who every day send innocent migrants to their deaths. It is essential to combat the trafficking gangs in Libya.

      As I have said, the word for this tragedy is shame. Let us take action so that this shame is never repeated.

      Ms JANSSON (Sweden) – After the catastrophe off the coast of Lampedusa two years ago, when more than 90 asylum seekers drowned, political leaders in Europe promised that the migration policy of the EU would change and that the necessary measures would be taken. Despite these promises, very little has happened. Every week, people are drowning in the Mediterranean. The Italian search and rescue operation, Mare Nostrum, has ended and the capacity to save lives has radically decreased. As long as there are wars and armed conflicts, as long as people are denied human rights and are tortured, and as long as children are starving and their families cannot support themselves, migrants and refugees will look for a new life that can give them hope for a better future. Many of those who risk their lives to reach Europe on overcrowded vessels are seeking refuge from war and persecution. We must do more to ensure that people in need of protection can come to Europe legally. At present, half of the European Union member States do not even take in their United Nations quota of refugees and the reception of asylum seekers is extremely uneven among member States.

      We must take responsibility and give proper support to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, which are receiving the majority of the Syrian refugees. The small group of refugees from Syria who have reached Europe are divided between just a few EU member States, primarily Germany and Sweden. Sweden has now offered permanent residency to 80 000 Syrian refugees.

      The discussion should therefore focus on how, together, we can work towards creating more legal and safe ways to reach Europe, so that desperate refugees do not have to put their lives in the hands of criminals. The focus of our discussions should be how best to contribute to peace, stability and democracy in the Mediterranean region. What we hear instead, however, is speculation on whether rescue operations actually contribute to more drowning and more tragedy.

      In a world in which so many people are forced to flee, Europe should be doing more. One of the basic premises of the common asylum policy should be that all member States take in their quota of refugees. There should also be legal ways for refugees to travel to Europe.

      Ms GHASEMI (Sweden) – What is happening in the Mediterranean Sea right now is tragic and a big humanitarian catastrophe. The situation has become worse in the past days and weeks. The recent tragedies show that it is time for Europe to decide to have an asylum policy where people are not forced to risk their lives. Sweden, which I represent, takes a big responsibility for refugees and will continue to do so. It is not enough that Sweden and other European countries, such as Germany, do so. More countries must do more and we need to share the responsibility.

      I agree with the rapporteur’s conclusion that we need to increase legal and alternative migration channels, including: resettlement, facilitated access to family reunification, and other protection entry mechanisms. Increased resettlement through the United Nations system – so-called quota refugees – is a system that is well proven and is already in place. It gives the most vulnerable people a legal and safe way to gain asylum in Europe. The problem with the system is that not enough countries in Europe use it. There is, therefore, a system that can make a strong contribution to helping people to enter the European Union legally, but what is missing is countries’ will and effort. If all countries in the European Union took as many quota refugees as Sweden, in proportion to their populations, it would mean opportunities for a new life for 100 000 people each year.

      The number of disasters in the Mediterranean Sea continues to increase. A large number of people have drowned on the way to Europe. A big responsibility rests on the human traffickers who exploit a desperate situation. It is important that the Council of Europe acts and sends a clear message. We need to do more to support the peace process in Libya, so that the situation in the country stabilises and we can implement an effective action plan to stop human traffickers and smugglers.

      In conclusion, we need to take action and, within the European Union, we need to share responsibility for the resettlement and relocation of refugees. Libya represents a transit country for the majority of the people trying to get to the EU via the Mediterranean. The ongoing decay of Libya allows for deadly human smuggling. We must strengthen rescue operations at sea, combat smugglers and support peace processes in the conflict-affected areas. We also need to strengthen our duty to save lives at sea, and that means stronger search and rescue operations.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – This is not just one catastrophe, but several. The terrible thing is that it is very predictable. Every member who dealt with this issue in the past few months knew that this was bound to happen, but we did not have the moral strength to prevent it from happening. We should face up to and mourn this human catastrophe. It is also a moral catastrophe for the European Union. There are four points we need to address.

       The first point is the most difficult to address. We are very clear about what it is, but it is very difficult to do anything about it: the cause of the flow of migrants is poverty. We must combat poverty. Secondly, no one can say that we are not in a position to do something on a humanitarian level. We should provide humanitarian aid to refugees, particularly in areas where there is civil war. We could do more to improve the situation in those places so that people could remain where they are, but of course we would need €20 billion of humanitarian aid and we are not ready to put our hands in our pockets. In this context, the defence budget of Germany is €30 billion.

      Thirdly, we must deal with the refugees that there are. It is terrible not to rescue people in the Mediterranean. Fourthly, we must help people in situ, so that they can integrate as soon as possible.

      This week members of the German Parliament have started an initiative with the Italians. Members have received information about that by e-mail and can participate. As we said, we do not want a situation in which we are simply kicking the ball from one side to the other; we want to take responsibility for what is happening and break through the irresponsibility that is non-acceptance of responsibility. We need legal channels for refugees and to provide humanitarian visas. We also need to have a rescue mission in the Mediterranean. Mare Nostrum must be financed in a way that shows European Union solidarity.

      The resolution and recommendations are good, but there is a problem in the description of the situation, which contains something that is basically wrong. It is suggested that Mare Nostrum attracts refugees. That is completely wrong and I therefore suggest that we correct that part of the resolution. We must look at the figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Mare Nostrum did not create a pull factor for refugees. If we correct that and a couple of other points, we will have a very good report.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schwabe. The next speaker is Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – Last Saturday, yet another tragic event occurred, worsening the death toll. It was the worst such tragedy to occur in the Mediterranean, and makes a mockery of all the fine speechifying about curbing the problem of migrants. After the Lampedusa tragedy, people considered the issue to be more or less settled, and everyone was saying that we must never let such a thing happen again, but the fact is that despite the meetings of European leaders and the establishment of the Triton frontier control system hundreds of migrants are still dying at sea. The political rhetoric of European leaders reflects the same basic approach, namely how to strengthen the European fortress, police what happens in southern countries and prosecute persons preying on migrants. The credibility of the whole of Europe could be jeopardised. Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish Prime Minister, recently stated that the southern European countries and countries of transit clearly cannot cope with the tragedies that are occurring every day.

      Various international organisations have strongly criticised Europe. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, recently said: “Europe is turning its back on some of the most vulnerable migrants…and risks turning the Mediterranean into a vast cemetery”. Europeans need to be aware of the need for protection for less qualified workers. European countries must have an approach that is more robust and courageous and less cynical. Europe should enhance legal means of access to Europe for migrants and asylum seekers. As stressed at the World Human Rights Forum in Marrakesh, the rejection of migrants leads to the development of extremism in our society. The King of Morocco has stressed the need for peaceful coexistence. There needs to be stability in southern European countries.

      I appeal to European delegates present in this Chamber to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. It is a prime instrument of human rights.

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

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I am deeply concerned about the situation of migrants and refugees from North Africa. They are prepared to risk their lives to reach the southern shores of Europe. One was quoted in The Guardian a few days ago as saying, “If I die at sea, it’s not a problem – at least I won’t be tortured”. We cannot lay the burden of the decision about what is happening in southern Europe only on the countries that happen to be geographically closer to the north African area. The frequent tragedies happening in the Mediterranean lead us to conclude that the management of the external borders of the European Union is in a parlous state. The constant erosion of European funding for relevant projects hits, above all, countries such as Italy, Spain, Malta and Greece. Those countries have to spend massive resources on coping with the challenges of undocumented immigration.

      We need a radical reworking of the Dublin Regulation – the European Union system – to adapt it to the new realities and bring it in line with Article 80 of the Treaty on European Union, under which the legal provisions governing EU policy on external borders and assistance on immigration are based on the bedrock principle of solidarity and the equal sharing of burden, including any financial burden, between member States. The international community in general and European diplomacy in particular must address the emergency in the region. There must be a particular focus on the post-2015 sustainable development goals. If we achieved those objectives it would make a decisive contribution to decreasing the pressure of the flow of immigrants.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – We face appalling human tragedies and appalling crimes. Recent events have shattered many of our illusions that we in the North can leave these problems to the South without sharing any of the burden or that we can topple dictators such as Gaddafi and ignore the consequences of doing so.

      Our starting point must surely be that there is a big world out there, full of conflict and of poverty. People affected by that conflict and poverty can see on television and in films the relative prosperity and security that we in Europe have and, understandably on a human level, they want part of that for themselves and their families. At one level, therefore, the demand is insatiable and there is no complete solution. If we seek agreements with the littoral countries, those agreements will have to be paid for by the rich countries of the North. If we try to destroy the ships, they could be fishing vessels during the day, so how will we know which ships will eventually be used? That is the problem that we have had with pirate ships. If we double the search and rescue efforts, there is a danger that will encourage traffickers and migrants. If we seek a rapid return, where do we return people to? Do we return them to Eritrea, Mali or Syria? That is not likely to happen.

      Currently, only two traffickers are on trial – others will find trafficking worth while. Even if more money is paid for development, vast disparities will remain in the world. Even if we tackle migration upstream, it will take a long time to stabilise the chaotic conditions in countries such as Libya and Syria. That is only part of the solution.

      We in Europe have painful decisions to make. We certainly need more money, but it is a time of austerity. We need more visas, but immigration is a matter of controversy in many of our countries. We need to give more agricultural market access to stabilise producer countries, but that would therefore mean less protectionism in Europe. Most of all, most of those proposals are long-term ones. In the short term, there is an immense human tragedy. We cannot fold our arms, and we cannot pass by on the other side and cynically allow people to drown to discourage others. They are our neighbours in the biblical sense of the term. We will be rightly shamed and condemned by history if we do not use our resources to rescue desperate people. Together, we must seek longer-term solutions. In the short term, we cannot pass by on the other side.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Anderson. The next speaker is Mr di Stefano, who has no group affiliation.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy)* – The deaths at sea in the Mediterranean directly affect European governments, which are based on keeping the banks alive but not on keeping human beings alive. We should respect the lives of migrants and their living conditions.

      What is the cause of migrants coming from places such as Afghanistan and Libya? Europe is responsible. If countries go to war, they should look at the consequences. The Five Star Movement in the Italian Parliament believes that we should deal with this. It is suggested that we should introduce quotas to manage migrants, and that they should be divided up between the 28 member countries of the European Union. Only five countries are involved currently. We should also divide the costs. Italy is on the front line of accepting migrants, who sometimes get a negative reception. We should send the message to Europe that people should have the right to asylum, but it is also a question of resources. The problem should be dealt with fairly.

      We must look at the causes. The Five Star Movement believes we should have an international agency to control geopolitical flows. We want it to be possible for people to request asylum when they are in transitional countries, so that they do not have to face getting on death ships. They should not be rejected. We should have a common battle against this problem.

      We should also stop Islamophobia. We talk about Muslims throwing Christians overboard, but nobody is talking about Christians fighting Muslims in Afghanistan and other countries. We must put an end to such ferocious attacks.

      Refugees are waiting on the shores of North Africa in places such as Libya, but the smugglers and delinquents are already in our countries. We should not just be looking at those waiting on the shores. There is collusion between the smugglers and they make a lot of money out of migration. I have put down three amendments along those lines. I call on delegates to support them. We want to put an end to those deaths at sea.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr di Stefano. The next speaker should be Mr Pâslaru, but he is not here. I call Mr Spautz.

      Mr SPAUTZ (Luxembourg)* – The Council of Europe has always also been the council of refugees. That is true more than ever given today’s resolution, so I congratulate the rapporteur.

      Here in Strasbourg, we fight not only for human rights. First and foremost, we fight for human beings. That is the foundation of our Organisation – it is an inter-human organisation. The resolution rightly mentions irregular migrants, but before they became irregular migrants, those people were men, women, children and babies – even babies are finding undignified and inhuman deaths in the depths of the Mediterranean.

      After this human tragedy – it is really an inhuman tragedy – over the past few days in the Mediterranean, we must act. Before building life, we must stop death. First and foremost, we must immediately bring deaths in the Mediterranean to an end. That magnificent sea must cease to be a human cemetery not in the near future but immediately. In order to act immediately, Europe and the European Union must significantly reinforce its search and rescue operations. The Frontex approach is not sufficient, because death at sea is completely unacceptable.

      The same is true when it comes to combating smugglers and traffickers, who are the real criminals behind those deaths. When we have stopped the deaths, we must review the Dublin Regulation. The problem of refugees is not a problem only for Mediterranean countries; it is a problem for all European countries – hats off to Turkey in that respect.

      I repeat that the problem of refugees is first and foremost a human and humanitarian problem. Asylum must become a concrete right – we must review our asylum policies. In short, we must legalise hope, and we must re-politicise hope. Europe, the Council of Europe and the European Union must once again give hope to citizens in Europe and everywhere in the world. That hope must be based first and foremost on solidarity and the equity of political and economic systems. Solidarity is an international imperative, as rightly noted by the UNHCR. The solidarity of Europe must not stop on the shores of the Mediterranean: it must be transnational, global and worldwide. Migrations flows are found all over the increasingly globalised world.

      To bring involuntary migration flows to an end, we need to do three main things: attack hunger and poverty; end political and democratic instability; and end wars between States and civil wars. No sustainable solution to the problem of refugees is possible without bread, stability and peace – in short, it is not possible without social, political and societal hope. The right to hope is a human right. It is also a duty for our Council of Europe. We must be a council of asylum and hope.

      Mr BRAGA (Portugal) – The tragedies and loss of lives in the Mediterranean are more than a demonstration of the weakness of the co-operation between European States, including the European Union. The tragedies represent an intolerable withdrawal from a serious problem to which States on the two shores of the Mediterranean need to respond. No country can be excluded from responsibility: we will all be guilty.

      The political responsibility of our Parliamentary Assembly is to find consensus to build initiatives to end one of the biggest nightmares of our time, and to urge member countries to co-operate to find the definite answers at the different intervention levels. The new millennium has been marked by the appearance of new migration challenges – they are key issues in international relations. Migration has become a major social and economic factor worldwide. The growth of global population and population ageing in some regions have a significant impact on the labour market. The previous division between North and South and developing countries is no longer as relevant as before; new flows are emerging from South to South, from North to North and from North to South. Illegal migration constitutes one of the main challenges for European migration management. The increase of irregular migrants in recent years shows that Europe has failed to tackle this problem. These challenges need new policies improving migration governance.

      How can we address these challenges in order to promote migrant protection while safeguarding legitimate national interests? Europe needs to develop transparent and clear admission procedures and legal, safe, rights-based migration opportunities, including resettlement and family reunification and seeking shared solutions for refugees. However, the increase in the victims of illegal trafficking of migrants demands from Europe an immediate and effective solution and a strong response to the networks of traffickers. Only by joint responsibility and streamlining of more resources can the effective solution of this problem be ensured.

      The failure in addressing these challenges results in a disaster for both sides. But we have the capacity to facilitate investment opportunities, cultural links, transfer of skills and technologies, and bring about the reconciliation of political processes in the countries of origin.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Bensaid from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr BENSAID (Morocco)* – I begin by paying tribute to the men, women and often children who have met with watery graves. Different protagonists are involved – we talk about smugglers, the travellers themselves and the sea – but, without in any way questioning the role of the smugglers, everyone has a role to play. There are also indirect difficulties in the north African countries, such as security, the poverty in which many populations of Africa are bogged down and the application of the policies that encourage clandestine entry into Europe.

      States simply survey their borders – they patrol their borders. Some European countries have tried to prevent the flows of migrants to prevent them from crossing the graveyard that the Mediterranean has become, but these policies have never really reduced the flows to Europe. A Europe of values should predominate over a Europe of fear. It is not a geographic solution; to have open borders would be difficult for both Africa and Europe, but when there is such a wide gap between rich and poor the gap will become even wider and there will be many more bodies buried in the Mediterranean.

      I support the setting up of immediate action to bring an end to this tragedy of the sea separating two continents. Action is necessary but it cannot simply be limited to countries on both sides of the Mediterranean – it has to be done across the board and in a way that shows solidarity with all parties. We should reduce inequalities between the two continents and show that democracy is a locomotive of the economy and would even increase countries’ prosperity. We need to have a better distribution of resources and wealth, which means a balance between the partnership of Africa and Europe. They should be dealt with on an equal footing, which is not necessarily the case in relations between the two continents. We need win-win partnerships based on respect between States. These tragedies are neither those of Europe nor of Africa – they are shared by all – and it is together that Africa and Europe should show solidarity and put an end to these tragedies; otherwise no one will emerge as the winner.

      Mr D'ARCY (Ireland) – The recent tragic events in the Mediterranean when between 700 and 950 migrants were drowned in a single incident calls for immediate action. This timely report by Mr Mariani is very much to be welcomed.

      Ireland has a very special reason for understanding the plight of the migrants. During the Irish famine in the 19th century, more than 1 million people left Ireland in what came to be known as coffin ships to seek a new life in America. Unfortunately, only a relatively small percentage reached their destination, as many of the ships were unseaworthy and sank en route. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

      Instability and conflict across the Horn of Africa, North Africa and the Middle East have led to unprecedented numbers of migrants attempting to enter Europe by sea. There must first be a humanitarian response to the situation, with increased resources to aid those most directly involved. As has been mentioned, the organised crime aspects of this crisis have also to be dealt with firmly. However, more than anything, people need to be safe in their home country, and for this to happen, sustainable political solutions to conflicts are essential.

      More than 3 400 people died attempting to cross during 2014, and 170 000 were rescued. In the same period, almost 1 600 migrants are known to have drowned. We need to assist these people affected by conflict and persecution. It is by giving true assistance of this type that we can reduce the pressure on people to risk their lives attempting to reach Europe.

      Ms ANAGNOSTOPOULOU (Greece)* – The pictures of the tragedy in the Mediterranean are terribly affecting but we need to engage our minds and react. Although this is a humanitarian crisis, the report has some irrational and contradictory aspects as it stands. It seems to be based on the idea that the whole problem derives from the smugglers but at the same time it says that the number of immigrants has increased exponentially in the last year. In that case, one should admit that it is not the smugglers who have caused the tragedy, although of course they have contributed to it decisively for some years, particularly since north African and middle eastern countries collapsed because of their political and economic travails, caused partly by the European Union.

      The flow of human beings is not just about illegal immigrants; people are fleeing from Syria, for example, and this shows that the human wave towards Europe is not going to stop. So Europe needs, first and foremost, to focus on its search and rescue effort in the Mediterranean; Greece, Italy and Malta cannot be left in the lurch to cope with this humanitarian tragedy.

      It is outrageous that the report peddles the line that illegal immigrants are the problem and that a militaristic approach should be taken to solving the problem in the Mediterranean. The EU needs to come up with a plan for legal admission, whereby refugees can cross the Mediterranean safely. Lampedusa and Rhodes are becoming graveyards for these refugees, whereas they should just be stepping stones to civilisation. We also need a plan whereby we share out the refugees and immigrants among all 28 European countries, and the Council of Europe needs to exert massive pressure on the EU so that it revises the Dublin agreements; it needs to react and adapt the Dublin system to the new reality.

      Another problem with the report is that it draws a distinction between Christian and Muslim immigrants, and so enters into language that can promote Islamophobia. Islamic immigrants are not immigrants because of their religion; poverty has no religion and it is not a barbarism against our civilised world. Xenophobia and fascism are spreading and increasing in Europe all the time, and the solution is to respect life, rather than just closing our doors.

      The PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Rivard, Observer from Canada.

      Mr RIVARD (Canada)* – Thank you, Mr President, for making it possible for me to address this Assembly to discuss the human tragedy in the Mediterranean.

      I thank the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for having addressed this issue. I particularly thank our rapporteur, Mr Mariani, for this report, which he drafted at such short notice. As a member of the Canadian delegation, with the status of observer in this Assembly, I wish to echo our European partners in expressing grave concern about the situation of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. As has been stressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we must congratulate the Italian coastguard on the work it is doing to save thousands of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean. According to best estimates, more than 1 500 people have died at sea since the beginning of this year, which is 30 times more than died in the same period last year. Obviously, others will attempt this dangerous passage in search of safety and opportunities that they do not find in their country of origin or of transit. One solution would consist of reducing the number of people prepared to risk this dangerous sea passage, and that must be done by working with the countries of origin and transit to bring this high-risk migration down to a minimum.

      Canada has introduced significant legislative reforms in recent years and has committed itself to welcoming more refugees who are awaiting safe harbour in the camps managed by the United Nations High Commissioner and whose return to their country of origin cannot be envisaged. Through, in particular, the World Food Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross, and in partnership with NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Canada offers humanitarian aid to Africa in countries that host refugees as a result of conflicts that have broken out in neighbouring countries. Canadian aid in Africa also targets sustainable development and supports small and medium-sized enterprises, so that young people and women can be appropriately trained and take an interest in investing in their countries of origin. These wide-ranging projects are entrusted to organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. The Canadian Francophonie scholarships programme is another positive way of strengthening the institutional capacities of developing countries that are members of the Francophonie.

      I conclude by expressing my condolences to all those affected by this tragedy.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – We face a worsening tragic situation, so we need to ask ourselves what we need to do. Obviously, we need to assist countries so that they can cope with this influx. We also need to arrest, and dismantle networks of, traffickers, smugglers and profiteers from this stolen money, who prey on the despair of victims. We need to receive and integrate newly arrived asylum seekers. Of course the issues involved depend on the location and economic situation in question. Some neighbouring countries consider that they cannot cope with this influx of refugees. Other States make national security arguments in order to restrict the entry of these foreigners. More far-flung States consider that immigration should be selective and very limited. Other States simply provide money and expect the major international organisations to manage the problem. So, solidarity clearly has its limits.

      It is mistaken to say that nothing has been done. We have had lots of European initiatives – for example, the European border surveillance system EUROSUR, and the international or European taskforces that have been deployed. There has been a shift in the sharing of responsibility between the various States, with more co-operation in respect of rescue vessels. Like other parliamentarians, I support the idea of creating a European border guard system. We also need to increase Frontex’s budget, so that it can deal with the major challenges in the field. Finally, we need to reform the system of asylum in Europe.

      The situation has worsened in the past few months, so we need to strengthen the diplomatic efforts. We are all aware that the dominant ideology in Europe is based on economic co-operation between States, so, to a certain extent, the States are primarily responsible for matters relating to public order and security. We need a shared responsibility for dealing with mass immigration by sea, and the topic must be addressed as a priority. We also need to reform asylum and European policies in the European Union. Any policy needs to be based on the premise that on matters relating to external borders, be they maritime or geographical, all States should be involved, as enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. We also need to strengthen co-operation in the service of peace, under the aegis of Europe and the UN. We need an innovative, more focused, more operational approach to these parts of the world where social conflicts start as domestic conflicts and then become international. The Council of Europe should introduce a new road map on these important, controversial issues. As Émile Durkheim said, it is not good enough just to have strong feelings; they need to be targeted. So proclaiming principles is not enough; they need to be implemented properly.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – It is right to have this debate today, days after yet another catastrophe in the Mediterranean. I am, however, a bit disappointed by what I have heard, because the most important aim should surely be to save people and then think about how we can bring the people smugglers to book.

If we want to save people, we must realise that the most successful programme hitherto was Mare Nostrum. The report should not knock it, because it was a success and we need it to be reinstated as an initiative funded by countries Europe-wide. Later, once it is working, we can talk about protecting our borders.

      There are basically five areas where refugees are coming from in massive numbers – Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria and Afghanistan. We should never forget that small, vulnerable States are hosting more refugees than the whole of Europe put together. When I look at the figures on refugees hosted in Europe, I have to pay massive respect to Sweden for taking on so many refugees. Then of course there is Italy, which has done the same, and Germany, which has biggest intake of refugees in pure numbers. Some 2 million refugees are hosted in Turkey, and if we were to say that Europe would take as many refugees, proportionately, as Turkey, it would be a massive help.

      If we look at how refugee flows occur, we see that we would then have to introduce measures in Khartoum, for example. The first stop for those coming from Lebanon or Iraq is Istanbul. Those coming from Khartoum make the terrible journey towards Libya, where there are distribution centres. There are sub-regional hubs used by refugees on their way to the three major ports, Zuwarah, Benghazi and Tripoli. We need to be active in the hinterland and work in co-operation, but the first step must be to reinstate Mare Nostrum and rescue people. We also need to aspire to Turkey’s level of intake and have a fair distribution programme.

      Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – I support the report submitted by the rapporteur, Mr Mariani. It is a balanced report that seeks to reconcile the various issues involved. It discusses legal measures on asylum and immigration policy in Council of Europe member States, with a particular focus on how to relax strictures on immigration flows to avoid tragedies such as we have seen in the Mediterranean. We all know that we need to save lives, which means spending more money and finding ways and means to ensure that we can also fight against mafia-type organisations.

      As Mr Braga, from Portugal, stated, we also need to focus on countries of origin and countries of transit. Unless we strike at the root causes of the problems and galvanise our efforts, we will create false expectations among people who believe that they must get across the Mediterranean, even if it risks their life. Policies of co-operation with those in the region are of fundamental importance. Starting in 2007, the Spanish Government signed agreements with countries from which there was a strong immigration flow across the Mediterranean. We have now reduced the influx from 30 000 to zero, so there has clearly been successful co-operation on both shores of the Mediterranean. The issue particularly concerns the so-called bankrupt or failed States.

      This week, various measures were decided on at the European summit to co-ordinate and improve asylum policies and to identify immigrants. The intention is to have a co-ordinated approach, based on the premise that individual dignity should be respected. We need to fight shy of any approach of distinguishing between Muslims and Christians – the people involved are human beings. We should not just think of their religious and ethnic characteristics. The main thing is to preserve their lives. We need to fight the root causes of the major migratory flows.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr AMEUR (Morocco)* – The Mediterranean is being transformed into a giant marine cemetery. Overloaded boats are too frequently leaving thousands of victims, and the number of deaths has reached unprecedented levels over the past few months and years. It is a huge tragedy, involving people from sub-Saharan Africa, Libya and elsewhere. Men, women and entire families are fleeing poverty, destitution and war. The migrants are targets for modern slave traders – that is what they amount to – and there is also the threat of the so-called Islamic State terrorist organisation.

      There are population movements at a level unprecedented since the Second World War, as a result of several factors: the overturning of regional orders; the collapse of countries such as Syria, Iraq and Libya; the fact that so many people are in precarious socio-economic situations; and the jihadist pressure in substantial areas of Africa.

      Given the scale of the problem, combating traffickers in human beings cannot be dissociated from combating terrorists, and the battle has to be waged on several fronts. On the humanitarian front, there must be more solidarity to save people in distress and ensure that they are welcomed in a dignified way. On the security front, criminal networks must be combated, which requires co-operation between the countries on the north and south shores of the Mediterranean. On the political front, a new European migration policy, globally focused and based on solidarity, has become an urgent need. It should be a less hypocritical policy that goes beyond the current tensions between companies that want more migrants, as they are a source of cheap labour, and citizens who want fewer migrants. Many well-qualified voices are calling out for intelligent and humanitarian treatment of refugees from the South, and Europe needs to approach the matter wisely.

      Efforts are also required to bring devastating wars to an end. Libya is an urgent example. Long-term action must also be taken to make democratic reforms and develop the economy and respect for human rights in countries of origin and countries of transit. Only through such an approach will sustainable management of migration flows be possible.

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

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ (Spain)* – From Lampedusa to Catania, there are daily tragedies in the Mediterranean. After Lampedusa, there were a lot of speeches, but not much was done. If we want to avoid further empty rhetoric, Europe really needs to react.

      We need to bear it in mind that ultimately we are dealing with human beings who, at some point in their lives, become migrants or refugees, but who have fundamental human rights that need to be protected. Consequently, Europe today should not only respond as a matter of emergency to humanitarian tragedy, but recognise – here I share the view of many colleagues – that the first priority is to save lives. We have resources and lots of boats available in the Mediterranean that are simply picking up dead bodies. Those boats should be deployed on a permanent basis to rescue people and save human lives.

      We need to implement mechanisms for the safe passage of refugees, whether they are coming from the Horn of Africa, Syria or Libya. That would mean that Mafia-type organisations were not able to prey on these poor individuals. We also need reception centres, with responsibility shared between all European States. In addition, we need to implement a system of humanitarian visas and relocation.

      We need a fairer, shared responsibility for reception facilities in European countries, which means more funding being made available. We also need to make certain that all States ensure that their national budgets can support these emergency measures. In the longer term, of course, we need to fight irregular immigration, but primarily we need to fight criminal organisations. We must destroy the boats these smugglers use to transport these individuals, and also destroy the tax havens where they stash away the blood-stained profits they have made.

      We need to ensure that countries of origin better control their own borders, but they must be given increased capacity to do so. That means providing funding, but we must also strengthen our trade and development agreements with those countries. We should not speak in terms of a “pull” effect. We are not talking about a “pull” effect; if there is any cause of migration, it is hunger and despair.

      Our primary concern is to save these children and fight for human rights.

      Ms LESKAJ (Albania) – This terrible situation at the gates of Europe is particularly touching for me, because I am from Albania and we faced the very same situation a couple of years ago.

      I want to emphasise the fact that some extreme right-wing politicians have called for action “to sink the boats”. On Twitter, another one of them referred to Albanian migrants to Italy in more or less the same way. These statements are particularly cynical and racist, but that is not why I mention them. I want to say that the opposite situation happened with Italy, because Italy not only supported the Albanian immigrants it received but supported Albania itself with programmes. Today, the Adriatic Sea is a bridge of economic and cultural co-operation, which could serve as a model for others. Nowadays, there are 9 000 Albanian youngsters studying in Italy and more than 20 000 Italians working in Albania. That is a very good development.

      With regard to what is happening now in the Mediterranean Sea, we must bear in mind that the people involved are mostly coming from increasingly deteriorating conflicts, the end of which no one can foresee. There are a large number of women and children among them, and many of the people involved are the victims of smugglers, who have established both old and new smuggling routes. It is our duty not to leave migrants in the hands of criminals.

      Sharing the burden is vital. Countries such as Greece, Italy and Malta, which are facing the main influx of refugees, should not be left alone to do so. That means there is a need for a co-ordinated, steady and comprehensive solution, which can hardly be provided by one country alone.

      My country is facing this problem on its borders with the neighbouring countries of Greece and Montenegro. The trend is increasing; in the last year, more than 3 500 emigrants reached our borders. Of course, our government has taken the necessary measures to provide shelter and indeed all the assistance that the migrants need, and we have also made some legal changes as well. Certainly migrants are the result of the problem but we must clearly address the roots of that problem. Border control is very important, but it is not enough.

      It is clear that, in addition to the various conflicts, people become emigrants because of economic reasons – because of poverty and because they are living in failed States. So there is a need for a new political approach, and not only on refugee policy but on stabilising those failed states and improving their economic development.

      Mr VORUZ (Switzerland)* – The alert was sounded a long time ago about this situation, but not much has been done, leaving Italy, in particular, but also Malta and other countries in southern Europe, to go it alone. I presented a report to the Standing Committee in Brussels asking for greater solidarity between all European countries to provide for better sharing of the burden of asylum seekers, rather than leaving the countries signed up to the Dublin accords to get on with things on their own. In fact, I could call these agreements a kind of Pontius Pilate agreement, because other tragedies are happening elsewhere and we must absolutely find a solution to them. The solution is to renegotiate the Dublin accords along the lines of providing a quantitative and qualitative reception for refugees, which would allow for the countries of Europe to share the burden between them, depending on their economic resources.

      We must also look at the situation in north African countries. Both western and eastern powers must stop giving resources to the corrupt powers in that region, and enable those countries with large mineral resources to face up to their responsibilities; they must provide jobs there. All the dictators who have funds invested in Switzerland or elsewhere must have their assets frozen and seized. That is the only chance to escape this economic situation.

      We must show solidarity with these refugees, who have been so trampled underfoot. All European countries, including my own, should do everything possible to help Italy and other countries to take health and other measures to deal with refugees that are worthy of the name.

      Ms TZAKRI (Greece) – In my heart, I have the 700 people who drowned off Lampedusa. Of course, that was a terrible tragedy, but we cannot speak of it in isolation and speak only of migration flows in the Mediterranean. This problem does not exist only in Italy; it is a problem for all the countries of Europe. For instance, we know that thousands of people on the coast of Turkey are looking for a way to get to Europe. Greece never used to be a main point of entry for migration to Europe, but it is increasingly becoming so. Our capacity to manage the situation is being overwhelmed, although substantial resources are being made available. Greece is not the only point of entry, but it is a principal one and in the past two years it has become the main one. Our economic crisis makes the situation very serious.

      We know what measures need to be implemented and that they are basically effective. Why has it taken us so long to implement them? Why are the front-line countries being left alone? All European countries need to show solidarity. Today when a migrant crosses our borders, we have to welcome them. People coming to Europe have no intention of going home and we are obliged to find a solution for them in full conformity with European rules. The European Union is currently the largest aid donor in the world, but that is not lessening the pressure of migration at all.

      What new initiatives can we take? What should our foreign policy be? The European Union does not want to co-operate with Russia and other partners to find solutions. What is the nub of the refugee problem? I said this yesterday and I say it again: we must provide assistance and find out which country the people want to go to. We must promote legal migration, with all Europe taking full responsibility and showing solidarity. Let us not just apply simplistic sticking-plaster solutions.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – Today’s debate is important and necessary. We are haunted by the images of the people who have recently drowned. Today on my computer I saw a picture from yesterday of a gathering of immigrants in Greece. A sign was held up with the words “Don’t worry. We are not coming – we have drowned.”

      The situation is shocking and sad. We have to try to realise the sheer number of people who have drowned. There might be a hundred of us in this Chamber – can we imagine 700 people, including women and babies, dead? The mayor of Lampedusa has asked how much of a graveyard her island must become and said how infuriated she is that the situation has seemed to become accepted, as if an earthquake had happened. We should stop thinking like that because of what the deaths of these people mean to their families and countries – and to all Europe. The deaths dehumanise all the culture and values that we are proud of.

      We should mourn: feeling sadness is a key first step. Then we should take responsibility. We must intervene in peaceful ways to stop wars when they happen and rescue and protect human lives at sea with programmes such as Mare Nostrum. It is a lie to say that Mare Nostrum is a pull factor; Amnesty International reported yesterday that during the last year of Mare Nostrum’s operation about 20 000 people crossed; a year later, after the programme stopped operating, 21 000 people crossed. There is no pull factor. The push factor is wars, poverty and disasters – people jump to get away from those things. All European countries should save lives, create programmes and support each other.

      We have to adopt what the United Nations High Commissioner and all the international organisations say. We must establish strong European search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean and show solidarity so that all European countries take responsibility. If more lives are lost, we will all lose together; if they are not, we will all win together. On top of that, democracy will win and fascism and neo-Nazism will lose.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms El Ouafi, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco) – I thank the Italians for their heartfelt words about the tragedies in the Mediterranean involving people fleeing poverty and war, and seeking dignity and humanity. Thousands of men, women and children have died in the Sicilian channel since 2010. The worst tragedy occurred on 19 April. People are fleeing the civil war in Libya and the conflict in the Horn of Africa. People are displaced. We are talking about refugees as defined under international law and about potential asylum seekers.

      Europe can never become a fortress; that would run counter to its ideology and history. It needs to act to prevent further tragedies from occurring. Security measures are important but the best way is to ensure that there is more justice on both sides of the Mediterranean. Asylum policies need to be improved. Measures have been taken, but national parliaments need to start a dialogue between the North and the South and think hard about the underlying causes of the migratory flows. The destruction of States and crises of political transition are behind the problem, and Europe needs to put forward a strategic programme to ensure political stability in the southern European countries. There needs to be more political dialogue with the Libyan authorities; Morocco has done its best to promote that.

      Europe needs to come up with political responses to improve the situation in Africa and the Middle East – the only way to stop these tragedies at sea and stimulate the economies of stable countries of origin. The European Union should abandon its protectionist approach and open its markets to agricultural products from the Middle East and Africa. We must also enhance North-South co-operation. In 2013, Morocco presented a European initiative for development and migration. Such issues need to come to the fore as part of a long-term strategy.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece)* – The very serious problem of refugees has been with us for a long time. What we have discovered is that refugees and migrants have fled wars, imprisonment and so on. They are a tragic manifestation of all the crises and the Mediterranean has become a graveyard. We have had 1 260 deaths this month alone – 1 000 people drowned in the Mediterranean, and that cannot be allowed to be just a headline on the evening news.

      Many countries need to step up to the plate and share the burden. Where is Europe in all this? Where is solidarity and respect for life? We no longer see those principles. These are human beings. Perhaps this is a cultural problem, but above all these are human lives, so we cannot content ourselves with statements of solidarity in the media. The situation also must not be a pretext for xenophobia, which we see more and more of nowadays. Europe has a moral obligation to act, but it is not doing so, even now. More than ever, Europe is shirking its duty. We need to save these people’s lives and offer them asylum.

      There was a discussion in Luxembourg the other day on the legal ins and outs during which organised crime and reducing the influx of migrants were discussed, but there was no discussion about saving lives. We need to dismantle the people-smuggling networks but there is no real talk about distributing the migrants across all member States of the European Union. On matters of security, there does not seem to be any solidarity between European States. There appears to be no conscience any more.

      We do not have any time: every day we are losing lives. These people do not need our tears; they need a place to stay where they can be safe. We should also avoid wars so that people can stay in their own countries.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker on the list is Mr Ghambou from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr GHAMBOU (Morocco) – If memory is telling, the current crisis evokes a warning made by the Pope several months ago, when he stated that the Mediterranean nowadays is neither a safe border, nor an open bridge, but a “graveyard”. Perhaps his metaphor appealed to our hearts, but it did not do so enough to our minds. However, I am pleased to hear that, despite our different political backgrounds, we all agree that the current migrant crisis requires a more comprehensive, global approach where decision makers from both the North and the South come together to design concrete policies to end the human atrocities caused by illegal migration across the Mediterranean.

      As I draw on Morocco’s recent experience of migrant flows from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, I believe it is necessary to have a long-term strategy that addresses the three distinct yet related phases of illegal migration. Phase one is the country of origin, which exports thousands of young men, women and children owing to its lack of political stability and employment. The second phase is the country of transit and the third is the country of ultimate destination.

      On country of origin, we have suggested many times that economic co-operation between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa is the most practical solution to illegal migration. Humanitarian aid may provide temporary relief, but it will not bring an end to the problem. Together, we must think about creating investment programmes and reforming education systems, because that will promote youth employment in particular.

      As for the second phase, bilateral relations between northern and southern countries across the Mediterranean need to be strengthened. The Spanish-Moroccan example of border security is useful and could be extended to include bilateral relations between Libya and Italy and between Turkey and Greece.

      On the third phase, the countries of destination, namely those of Europe, need to have a common migration policy. The message must be clear – do we need migrant workers from outside or not, and, if so, when? Is human mobility a right or a crime? For all of those phases we have an urgent need to organise an international forum that brings together Heads of States, policymakers and civil society organisations from all countries that border the Mediterranean to examine all the problems relating to the global issue of migration. Morocco will always welcome such initiatives as long as they help us to transform the Mediterranean from being a border of violence and death to being a bridge of economic co-operation and human solidarity.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Mr Mariani, the rapporteur, to reply. You have eight minutes.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – I thank all the speakers who participated in the debate. The outlook is terrible. The Mediterranean has killed just about as many people as Ebola and it is likely that, in just a few weeks, the number of victims of the Mediterranean will exceed the number of Ebola victims. That is a terrible fact. To give you just one significant figure from the report, 1 700 people have died in the Mediterranean since the beginning of the year and according to some estimates that is 30 to 40 times as many as in the same period last year when the weather conditions were different. That really is unacceptable and horrifying.

      I do not think that one can put the blame on any single partner. I agree with Mr Bensaid when he said that Europe has responsibility in this respect, but that, at the same time, some African States must take responsibility for this horrible tragedy because the fact that States have become dysfunctional has resulted in more people taking to the road. Other countries have done much better in that respect. I think of Morocco in particular, whose migration policy is exemplary and a good example for others to follow. Apart from the responsibility of certain African and certain European States, traffickers and smugglers are also culpable. They must be resolutely denounced and we must leave no stone unturned in combating them.

      What are the solutions? Most people who participated in the debate were interested in that. Time has come for action: action to sustain human lives and to find a more sustainable solution. It is not enough to spout more hot air. This is the major long-term challenge facing Europe. There is a demographic explosion in Africa, with rapid population growth. Some countries are taking off economically, but that is not commensurate with the growing numbers of people. The migratory pressure that we are experiencing today is just starting, and it will become more and more intense. It is likely that over the next 20 years this issue will keep coming back to this Assembly, hopefully with fewer victims.

      We all know the long-term solutions – they have been mentioned by several speakers – including co-development and ensuring stability of States, because stability is a sine qua non for economic development. It must be in place because economic development is required to keep these migrants in their own countries. But so many States are fragile. We had hoped that some States in North Africa were on the right road, but they became unstable, fragile and vulnerable in a very short period.

      We need those long-term solutions, but we must also act in the short term to save lives. Let there be no misunderstanding about Mare Nostrum. It was a success when it came to saving lives at sea. You could argue that it was not enough, because it is always not enough when a single human life is lost, but if you look at the graph comparing its resources to those of Triton, you will see they are just not the same. For example, Triton has a single coastguard vessel where Mare Nostrum had four. Mare Nostrum had an amphibious vessel that could welcome a large number of refugees at a time, and Triton has no such vessel. Mare Nostrum had three planes and six helicopters, and Triton has one of each to reconnoitre. Our Italian colleagues took on their shoulders a burden that Europe as a whole is incapable of dealing with.

      Another positive example is Turkey. Within the Council of Europe, Turkey is the country that is hosting, proportionately, the greatest number of refugees because of the dramatic events in the Middle East. To do away with all ambiguity about Mare Nostrum, figures from the Amnesty International Internet site suggest that it was funded to the tune of €10 000 000, whereas the funding for Triton is less than €3 000 000. I am not here to identify who is guilty, but it is obvious that it is insufficient for the European Union to invest €3 000 000 in this operation, given its overall budget.

      We are in a circle that can be virtuous or vicious. There can be contradictory effects. Some have criticised a paragraph in the draft resolution that talks about Mare Nostrum “inspiring” irregular migration. Obviously that is not the case, but we must recognise the paradox. When someone boards a ship there are only two ways out. The first – that the person dies at sea – is unacceptable. The second is regrettable and deplorable – the person arrives in Europe as an irregular migrant. It is not satisfactory to have only those two ways out. There must be a third way.

      I looked at the French press from yesterday, and some are calling for an opening of the doors to untrammelled migration. Well, we should be open to migration, but it should be controlled migration in accordance with the rules. We cannot ask for general migration and then condemn people for a rise in xenophobia or support for the extreme right. Uncontrolled migration will have an impact on our population. The dilemma that confronts us is the need, first, to save lives, and secondly to try to put in place rules that really work and help States when that is required. Some States are more generous than others when it comes to receiving refugees, and Sweden and Germany have been mentioned as examples. I am not here to protect France, but it is somewhere in the middle of the table and we do take in 200 000 new permanent residents every year and give them residence permits. We need to look at the refugee figures, but we also need to take into consideration the efforts that are being made by certain countries to welcome and host refugees.

      I hope that Europe will go down the right path and will adopt the correct measures. In the past, we have had crisis situations and we have found the solutions. Ms Leskaj referred to the crisis that affected Albania and Italy. It was a limited crisis and the two States managed to find a bilateral solution. Mr Pintado referred to the 2007 crisis between Senegal and Spain. Yes, it was possible to find a solution there, but the crisis was limited in its scope. Some States have adopted much more radical measures, which can be criticised from a human rights point of view – I am thinking of Australia. The message from Australia was that no person would get regular status if they arrived on an irregular basis. That resulted in a number of deaths, but now the dangerous irregular migration to Australia has stopped.

      We need to be humane and generous, but given the scope of the problem we also need to put in place certain rules, limits and controls, and our States need to be able, first and foremost, to combat the smugglers and the traffickers. We also need to guard against any tendency to open up our borders in too much of an uncontrolled manner. The appeal in the report is for more humanity and more generosity in being prepared to receive migrants in a way commensurate with our means and resources and that would make it possible for these migrants to integrate into our society, so that they are not rejected. In the long term, development in the Middle East and Africa is the only way to find a sustainable solution.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mariani, for your report and response to the debate. I also thank the committee as a whole for the extraordinary work it has done under very serious time pressure and in difficult circumstances.

      The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which 14 amendments have been tabled.

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

      Is that so, Mr Mariani?

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – That is the case.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that these amendments to the draft resolution are adopted.

      The remaining amendments 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.

       I call Ms Katrivanou to support Amendment 3.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – We should not give the impression that we wish to ignore reality. The smugglers’ illegal activity is the symptom, not the disease. Europe’s borders are sealed, and that is where the problems begin. That is why people fleeing their homes have to have recourse to smugglers, because there are no safe, legal routes to Europe. The methods that the smugglers use are deplorable, but people become vulnerable to smugglers because we lack safe, legal ways to enter Europe.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – The author of the amendment says that there is a lack of legal ways for refugees to move across Europe. Of course there are borders in Europe. We might regret that, but I leave you to guess the consequences if we had no borders at all.

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

      Ms ERKEL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      I call Mr Nicoletti to support Amendment 13.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – We have read the report and we listened to the words of the rapporteur at the end of this debate. We appreciate the report very much, but we wish to remove the last part of the paragraph on the side-effects of Mare Nostrum. We feel that, in Strasbourg and Brussels, we want to give the strongest support to this question.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 13 is rejected.

      I call Mr Schwabe to support Amendment 4.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – The report states that Mare Nostrum had a pull effect. We do not agree, and all speakers have said that they do not agree. Ms Katrivanou mentioned the figures. I understood from Mr Mariani that he does not in any way doubt the United Nations’ figures, so I ask you to vote in favour.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – Let me repeat: I never claimed that Mare Nostrum had a pull effect. No. I just said that there is an effect that everyone can see and I explained why. I am against the amendment.

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

      Ms ERKEL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I call Ms Katrivanou to support Amendment 5.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – I fail to understand how paragraph 7 fits into the context of the resolution. We are talking about the human tragedy in the Mediterranean and how to save lives. Our Assembly should not echo and reproduce allegations made by the terrorist group known as Islamic State. Yes, it poses a security threat – that is undeniable – but that is to be examined in the context of another resolution. Indeed, we have discussed it here in the context of a recent resolution. Here, we are talking about how to prevent people from drowning.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – To deny the importance of what is happening politically in the Middle East would be to be blind. The sentence simply recalls what the Islamic State has said.

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

      Ms ERKEL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      Amendments 6 and 10 are identical. As Amendment 6 was tabled first, I will call the mover of that amendment to move both amendments. I call Ms Korun.

      Ms KORUN (Austria)* – The report talks about the need to stop the mass deaths in the Mediterranean. Paragraph 8, however, mentions a particular case that has not yet been fully investigated by the courts. We feel that going from the general to the particular does not have a place here, when the point of the report is to save lives in the Mediterranean. We would therefore like to delete this paragraph to avoid any misunderstanding.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – As I just commented, we cannot deny the geopolitical environment that is giving rise to this migration. It is a fact. It is true that the Italian courts are investigating, so I suggest that we submit it and put it in the conditional, but it is a fact.

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

      Ms ERKEL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendments 6 and 10 are rejected. 

      I call Mr Nicoletti to support Amendment 14.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – We do not want to deny these tragic events – we recognise them – but we do want to respect the work of Italian justice, which is under way. We would like to remove the final sentence, as it could make it difficult to understand exactly what we are talking about, which is trying to lives. Some people might feel that the refugees could be a threat to our religious peace in Europe.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms ERKEL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Katrivanou to support Amendment 7.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – In my opinion, the key challenge is making journeys safe to ensure access to asylum procedures. All international organisations are calling for that. As it stands, paragraph 9 gives the impression that we are implying that people should be prevented from seeking asylum for the sake of reducing the numbers of refugees reaching European territory. Once again, it is an issue of remaining within the context and scope of the resolution. Tackling migratory pressure is a whole different concern. At the moment we are discussing co-operation and how to save immigrants, not how to prevent migration.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Mariani.

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – We all agree that the main aim is to stop the haemorrhaging of human life, but the paragraph says simply that one possible measure is to reduce the number of people setting off on dangerous sea journeys. That goes without saying.

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

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      I call Mr di Stefano to support Amendment 11.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy)* – The amendment includes the idea of the social Europe of peoples that we want to promote. It adds to the original paragraph the phrase “sharing responsibility and costs for receiving and processing irregular migrants and asylum seekers” and, at the end of the paragraph, the idea of quotas to distribute the share of the burden among European Union member States. It should not simply be the responsibility of those countries that are shouldering most of the burden now; the situation should be much fairer. I thank the committee for approving that idea.

      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)* – The committee is in favour. This is an important amendment. It would be a revolution in how the Dublin Regulation is applied. It is not necessarily that we want quotas, but it is a good idea.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      I call Mr di Stefano to support Amendment 12.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy)* – The amendment might seem a bit provocative, but it is not. It basically reflects what I was saying earlier. Europe should shoulder this responsibility. We tend to forget that it is a shared responsibility, and we also tend to forget the root causes, responsibility for which is not necessarily shared. Look at the situation in Libya: it was bombed without any international consensus. The amendment says that when we are rebuilding these destroyed areas, the lion’s share of the responsibility should fall to those countries that destroyed them in the first place.

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

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The amendment makes no sense. It targets the countries that are responsible, but let us look at the countries from which the major flows of migrants and refugees come. Aside from Iraq, they are Syria, Eritrea, Mali and Nigeria. Which countries, I ask, are responsible for the problems in those countries?

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

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      I call Ms Katrivanou to support Amendment 8.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – This amendment is more of a formality. We have suggested it so that the text of the resolution will conform to the title of the document from the European Union Council of Ministers. It is currently under discussion, but if it is adopted, from tomorrow, its title will be “action plan on migration”; if it is not adopted, it will not have a title. We therefore suggest removing “conclusions” and inserting “action plan on migration”, which will be the actual title.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – This is a question of form. The conclusions of the European Union Council of Ministers we refer to are proposals. The action plan is a long-term plan that has been worked on for some months. The resolution should stay as it is.

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

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Katrivanou to support Amendment 9.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – We suggest that the word “irregular” be removed from the phrase “irregular migration”. We want to conform to the text of the European Union document, which talks about migration, period.

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

      Mr MARIANI (France)* – I am sorry, but if someone gets on a boat and tries to come in illegally, it goes without saying that that is irregular.

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

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13764, as amended.

      The vote is open.

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 on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Speaking time limits

2. Debate under urgent procedure: Draft Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe convention on the Prevention of Terrorism

Presentation by Lord Tomlinson of the reports of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Documents 13763 and 13753

Speakers: Mr Jónasson, Mr Franken, Mr Díaz Tejera, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Corlăţean, Mr Sasi, Ms Korenjak Kramar, Mr Golub, Mr Pozzo di Borgo

Draft opinion in Document 13763 adopted

3. Debate under urgent procedure: The human tragedy in the Mediterranean: immediate action needed

Presentation by Mr Mariani of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 13764

Speakers: Mr Vitsas, Mr Nicoletti, Ms Fiala, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Mota Amaral, Mr Correira, Ms Jansson, Ms Ghasemi, Mr Schwabe, Mr Yatim, Mr Badea, Lord Anderson, Mr di Stefano, Mr Spautz, Mr Braga, Mr Bensaid, Mr D'Arcy, Ms Anagnostopoulou, Mr Rivard, Ms Karamanli, Mr Schennach, Mr Pintado, Mr Ameur, Ms Rodríguez, Ms Leskaj, Mr Voruz, Ms Tzakri, Ms Katrivanou, Ms El Ouafi, Ms Kavvadia, Mr Ghambou

Amendments 1, 2, 3, 14, 11 and 8 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13764, as amended, adopted

4. Next public business

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*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON*

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Mónika Bartos

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/Lord Richard Balfe

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER*

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Margus HANSON/Rait Maruste

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Vitaly IGNATENKO

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS/Dalia Kuodytė

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ/Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid

Marietta KARAMANLI

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI*

Danail KIRILOV/Kancho Filipov

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/Killion Munyama

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Serhiy LABAZIUK*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO*

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

Michael McNAMARA/Jim D'arcy

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN/Armen Rustamyan

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACŞU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH/Jenő Manninger

Miroslav NENUTIL*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Joseph O'REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Fazil Mustafa

Florin Costin PÂSLARU

Waldemar PAWLAK/Marek Borowski

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET*

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Milena SANTERINI*

Kimmo SASI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO*

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER*

Salvador SEDÓ*

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK*

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI/Andrzej Jaworski

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ/Gabriela Pecková

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Vladyslav Golub

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Vahan Babayan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Corneliu CHISU

Percy DOWNE

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Michel RIVARD

David TILSON

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Abdelmalek AFERIAT

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI.

El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

Omar HEJIRA

Abdelmajid LAMHACHI

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM