AA16CR15

AS (2016) CR 15

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.       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.

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – Our first business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2016) 04 Addendum 3.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

      I believe that Ms Groth would like to make a personal statement about something that happened this morning. Ms Groth, you have the floor.

      Ms GROTH (Germany)* – I apologise, but by mistake I abstained on the antisemitism resolution. I am absolutely in favour of the resolution, and I want to put that on the record. Thank you very much.

2. Communication from the Committee Of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Daniel Mitov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

      The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this afternoon is the communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly presented by Mr Daniel Mitov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. This will be followed by questions to Mr Mitov. We have only 45 minutes.

      Dear Mr Mitov, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to our Assembly again. Bulgaria is making great efforts in achieving the goals set out at the beginning of the chairmanship. I particularly congratulate you on the new Council of Europe strategy on the rights of the child launched in Sofia some weeks ago. The strategy is extremely necessary at a time when thousands of children in Europe are suffering exploitation, abuse and discrimination. We must build a society in which they can grow up healthy and safe. The floor is yours.

      Mr MITOV (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers) – Mr President, members of the Assembly, excellencies, and ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour to address, for the second time, the plenary sitting of the Parliamentary Assembly in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The work done by the Committee of Ministers under the Bulgarian chairmanship in the three months since my previous participation has been rich in events and positive developments. I am glad to be able to share with you some information.

      Unfortunately, during this period Europe has continued to face tragic events such as the terrorist attacks in Turkey and Brussels. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, on 18 February I issued a statement condemning the terrorist attack in Ankara and on 22 March in another statement I conveyed my condolences to the victims of the terrorist attacks in Brussels the same day. These were yet further attacks against our democracies. I confirmed that we must resolutely continue to combat terrorism in full respect of the values and principles that unite our continent.

      On 30 March, the Committee of Ministers adopted a statement condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks carried out in Turkey and Belgium. It pointed out that these horrendous attacks are unjustifiable and that they can only strengthen the determination of the Committee of Ministers to continue the fight against terrorism in full respect of the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      Those events only confirmed that the fight against terrorism will continue to be part of the agenda of the Council of Europe. We must constantly work on finding ways to tackle the roots of this problem, while ensuring respect for fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. In this respect, several steps have been taken in the last period. On 15 March, the Ministers’ Deputies held a thematic debate on “Rising extremism, radicalisation and xenophobia in the fight against terrorism: Building inclusive societies as a cure/ The need for collective action”. The Committee of Ministers also adopted guidelines for prison and probation services regarding radicalisation and violent extremism, as well as an action plan for 2016 to 2020 on transnational organised crime.

      On 13 April, the Committee of Ministers decided to hold the 2016 exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue from 9 to 10 November 2016 in Strasbourg. The main theme of the exchange will be “The role of education in the prevention of radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent extremism” and the two sub-themes will be “Education for democratic citizenship in the context of cultural and religious diversity” and “Empowering women and the role of the family in countering radicalisation and violent extremism”.

      In the field of education, a Council of Europe conference of Ministers of Education took place on 11 and 12 April 2016 in Brussels. In their final declaration, the participants expressed their support for a new tool that has been developed to promote democracy and democratic values in schools and other settings. The new tool, called the Council of Europe Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture, sets out a series of 20 key competences needed to play an active role in democratic society and explains how these can be defined and measured. The tool is designed to help tackle violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism and to promote inclusive societies.

      At the beginning of April, there was another worrying event – the escalation of violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. On 5 April, I issued a statement expressing my deep concern in this regard and I called on the parties to respect their commitments and take all appropriate steps without delay to put an end to the escalation of violence, respect the ceasefire and renew dialogue, under the aegis of the co-chairmen of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, towards a negotiated solution.

      Having touched on those unfortunate events, allow me to continue with some positive information concerning one of the main priorities of the Bulgarian chairmanship. In the framework of the Bulgarian chairmanship, on 9 February an international high-level conference “Democratic stability based on the European unity and co-operation” was held in Sofia, hosted by the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria. The event was attended by the chairpersons of the committees of foreign affairs of national parliaments of Council of Europe member States, the Parliamentary President, Pedro Agramunt, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Gabriella Battaini Dragoni, and other representatives of governmental and non-governmental organisations. During that forum, the participants discussed the challenges for democratic security and co-operation in Europe, the migration and refugees crises and the process of reconciliation and pan-European unification. One of the main topics was the idea of holding a fourth summit of the Council of Europe, proposed by the Sofia Declaration, aiming to reaffirm at the highest political level the Council of Europe member States’ commitment to the common values and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

      Another important event under the Bulgarian Chairmanship was the high-level conference "Reaching the Heights for the Rights of the Child", held on 5 and 6 April 2016 in Sofia. The event was opened by the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe together with the Presidents of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Malta in the presence of ministers from many countries and high-level representatives of international organisations. The event officially launched the Council of Europe’s Child Right’s Strategy, covering 2016-21, now known as the Sofia strategy, which was adopted on 2 March 2016 by the Committee of Ministers. The conference was co-organised by the Council of Europe, the State Agency for Child Protection in Bulgaria and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of Bulgaria.

      It was an honour for my country to be host of the conference and to contribute to this very important area of the Council of Europe’s activity, namely the protection of the rights of the child. It was attended by all member States, with a high level of political representation. Over 300 experts, policy makers and representatives of international and non-governmental organisations discussed how to translate the strategy into specific concrete action at a national level. Children and young people participated alongside adults throughout, showing that at the Council of Europe we practise what we preach when it comes to child participation. I am confident that the conference helped to foster new networks of political leaders, experts and young people who will continue to drive the implementation of the strategy, which will be also guided by the new ad hoc Committee of Experts on the Rights of the Child.

      Nine thematic sessions were held at the conference, in conformity with the five priorities of the new strategy. At those sessions, the achievements of Council of Europe member States in the area of the protection of the rights of the child, the main challenges in the area and the working methods to achieve the objectives of the new strategic document were discussed. A special focus was placed on the protection of the rights of unaccompanied minors. Again, in the framework of the Bulgarian chairmanship, an international conference on good governance at local level – challenges and prospects – was organised by the Bulgarian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works in co-operation with the European Committee on Democracy and Governance of the Council of Europe. The conference was held on 31 March in Sofia and many representatives of central and local authorities from Bulgaria and other member States of the Council of Europe took part. The main topics on the agenda included an exchange of views concerning mechanisms for fostering development of good governance at local level in the member States of the Council of Europe. The further development of the strategy for innovation and good governance at local level of the Council of Europe, for the implementation of which the Republic of Bulgaria has a leading role among European states, was also one of the main focuses for discussions during the aforementioned conference.

      I would like to use this opportunity to inform you that last week the Government of Bulgaria took the decision to sign the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, better known as the Istanbul Convention. The convention will be officially signed tomorrow in Sofia in the presence of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

      In addition to those topics of primary importance, in the last three months the Committee of Ministers continued its work on a number of other significant issues. On 13 April, the Committee of Ministers adopted a plan of action on “strengthening judicial independence and impartiality”, which is to be launched at the high-level conference of Ministers of Justice and representatives of the judiciary, which is organised in the framework of the Bulgarian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and will start tomorrow in Sofia. The conference is organised by the Ministry of Justice of Bulgaria and I will have the pleasure, together with Secretary General Jagland, to take part in its opening.

      During the last period, the Committee of Ministers held several interesting exchanges of views with: the new President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Guido Raimondi; the Commissioner for Human Rights; the President of the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights; the President of the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; the President of the European Committee of Social Rights; the President of the Committee on the Prevention of Torture; and the President of the International Criminal Court at the Hague. In March, the committee had a very important discussion on the longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights. The committee endorsed several solutions in response to the present and future challenges concerning: the authority of the Convention; its implementation at national level; the authority of the Court; the authority of the Court’s judgments, execution of judgments and supervision; and the place of the Convention mechanism in the European and international legal order.

      At their 1 250th meeting, the Ministers’ Deputies decided to close the examination of 88 decisions and judgments of the Court. At the end of March, the Committee of Ministers held an exchange of views on the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the light of the 2015 annual report on the supervision of the execution. The committee also adopted in March a reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2079 from 2015 on “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, in which in particular it reaffirmed that full and prompt execution of Court judgments, in accordance with the obligation set out in Article 46 of the Convention, is essential for the effective functioning of the Convention system.

      With regard to co-operation with other organisations, the Committee of Ministers held an exchange of views with Mr Gernot Erler, special representative of the German federal Government for the German OSCE Chairmanship. Furthermore, the 23rd meeting of the co-ordination group between the Council of Europe and the OSCE, held on 18 March 2016 in Strasbourg, took stock of co-operation between the two organisations regarding the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities and the promotion of tolerance and non-discrimination. The group’s next meeting will take place in Vienna in the second half of 2016 to examine co-operation in the areas of the fight against terrorism and the fight against trafficking in human beings.

      The committee held its annual exchange of views on human rights issues within the framework of the United Nations with experts from capitals. The discussion addressed the developments and main results of the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, co-operation between the Council of Europe and the United Nations in the human rights field in 2015, and major themes for the Human Rights Council in 2016. The Chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Council participated in the exchange of views. Several topics of a political nature continued to be part of the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. Here, I would like to inform you that, in accordance with one of the priorities of the Bulgarian chairmanship, namely to bring Belarus closer to the Council of Europe, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers I paid an official visit to Minsk on 11 April 2016. During the visit, I had meetings with a number of government officials, as well as with representatives of civil society.

      In particular, I had a very constructive conversation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Mackey, who expressed willingness to deepen co-operation with the Council of Europe. The Belarusian side also expressed a wish to restore its status as special guest to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. On my side, I pointed out that the improvement of the human rights record and, in particular, the establishment of a moratorium as a first step towards the abolition of the death penalty, will show the genuine intentions of the Belarusian side and will clear the path for our further rapprochement. I also announced the Bulgarian contribution to the Council of Europe Information Point in Minsk, amounting to €10 000 and offered all possible support, including expertise, for Belarus to continue its efforts to align itself with Council of Europe standards.

      Of course, the issue of Ukraine was constantly on the agenda. A delegation from the Rapporteur Group on Democracy of the Ministers’ Deputies visited Ukraine on 3 and 4 March 2016, in order to meet representatives of the Ukrainian authorities and civil society and take stock of the current state of implementation of the Council of Europe Action Plan for Ukraine, its results and the next steps. Following my statement as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers on 10 March, on 30 March the Committee adopted a decision on Ms Nadia Savchenko. In particular, the committee expressed its concern following her sentencing on 22 March by a court of the Russian Federation and called upon the Russian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Ms Savchenko, on humanitarian grounds and in keeping with the “Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements”. On 13 April 2016, the Secretary General presented to the Ministers’ Deputies the results of the mission sent to Crimea in January in order to assess the human rights and rule of law situation on the ground.

      The Committee of Ministers reviewed in March the state of implementation of the commitments, accepted by Armenia, on the basis of a report prepared by the Secretariat. The committee welcomed the constant progress made by Armenia in fulfilling statutory obligations and specific commitments as a member of the Council of Europe, as well as the commitment of the Armenian authorities to further reforms, aimed at strengthening the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It encouraged the Armenian authorities to implement constitutional reform, and to carry out the ongoing reform of the electoral code, through an inclusive approach, based on full compliance with European standards.

      Still in March, the Committee of Ministers approved an action plan to provide assistance to Georgia for the period 2016-19. I would like to use this opportunity to inform you that I will make a visit to Georgia, together with Secretary General Jagland at the beginning of May.

      Since the beginning of the year, the Committee of Ministers has been especially active with regard to the freedom of media and the freedom of Internet, which also is in line with one of the priorities of the Bulgarian chairmanship. In this period, several important documents were adopted. In February, the Committee of Ministers adopted a Recommendation on the Internet of Citizens, calling on member States to recognise digital culture as one of the key issues for modern cultural policy making and to revisit their cultural policy approaches with a view to implementing the policy guidelines contained in the recommendation, so as to serve citizens to the best of their ability. In April, the Committee adopted a Recommendation on the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists and other Media Actors, and a Recommendation on Internet Freedom. On 30 March, the Committee of Ministers approved the Council of Europe Strategy on Internet Governance 2016-19, which aims to tackle the challenges to human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the rapidly evolving online environment. The objective of the strategy is to help member States effectively protect and respect human rights and the rule of law online, and empower people to explore the Internet’s potential for education and democratic participation.

      The committee also adopted guidelines on the protection and promotion of human rights in culturally diverse societies, which provide practical advice on how to ensure better protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of culturally diverse societies, based on respect for the inherent and equal dignity of every human being. The committee agreed to examine the follow-up given by member States to the present guidelines five years after their adoption.

The Committee of Ministers approved in March a Thematic Action Plan on the Inclusion of Roma and Travellers, again for 2016-19. Following the committee’s agreement in principle in September last year to establish a European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture (ERIAC), it was informed in March that the German Government is willing to host the ERIAC in Berlin.

      During the reporting period, the Committee of Ministers adopted several declarations and statements on the death penalty in respect of the United States, Belarus and Japan.

      One of the main topics that you are debating during this session is the different aspects of the migration and refugees crises and I cannot refrain from saying a few words in this regard. The refugee flow is an unprecedented challenge to all of us. It is the international community that has the overall responsibility for improving the difficult humanitarian situation. We have a responsibility to define a clear path forward guided by international refugee law, human rights and humanitarian law.

      It is necessary to pay more attention to the national legislation applicable to immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and Governments and political leaders should refrain from using xenophobic rhetoric linking migrants to social problems or security risks, thereby making the integration of the few migrants staying in the country even more problematic. We also need to define clearly what exactly it is that constitutes a threat to our democracies, but intolerance and hatred undoubtedly do represent such a threat. Our common objective must be to combat terrorism and to protect the human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

      Lastly, I would like to present for your attention the exhibition “The Roofs of Sofia” by the Bulgarian photographer, Bistra Boshnakova, which you can find outside, in the foyer of the Hemicycle. It has been presented on the occasion of this Parliamentary Assembly session by the Bulgarian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and I warmly invite you to visit it.

      Thank you for your attention.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Mitov. We will now proceed to questions. I remind colleagues that questions are limited to 30 seconds and should be questions, not speeches. I call Mr Billström.

      Mr BILLSTRÖM (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Mr Minister, in the last year and a half the EPP has, on several occasions, tabled written questions on the case of Ms Nadia Savchenko, who might be about to be released. In particular, my colleague Mr Omtzigt has twice tabled urgent written questions on the situation. Both questions were tabled more than a year ago. Despite letters and reminders, we never got a reply. The questions are still very relevant and if they go unanswered we might think that you are not doing any work. Could you please provide answers to those questions within three weeks?

      Mr MITOV – First, the case of Nadia Savchenko has been raised on a number of occasions in the Committee of Ministers, and I share your concern. Last year, the committee expressed its concern about Ms Savchenko’s state of health and called on the Russian authorities to release her without delay on humanitarian grounds. That appeal was reiterated first by me last February, as I mentioned, and again by the committee in March.

      Until Ms Savchenko is released, the guarantees provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and the other Council of Europe instruments apply to her, as they do to any other person under the jurisdiction of a member State. I hope that the developments of the last 24 hours can be taken as a positive step towards a solution and the return of Ms Savchenko to Ukraine. We will continue to follow the case and react at any suitable moment.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS (Spain, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – The recently signed agreement between the European Union and Turkey in the wake of the grave refugee crisis in Europe gives rise to many doubts about the legality of this agreement and its implementation. Different humanitarian organisations have been working in places that have been turned into detention camps. How has the Committee of Ministers assessed the situation with regard to the respect of human rights and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees?

Mr MITOV – I would like to address this question from the perspective of the Council of Europe, but I will extend my answer in a national capacity, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria – a European Union member State.

      All treatment of refugees and asylum seekers must comply fully with the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant international instruments: you are absolutely right. Assurances have already been given that every application for asylum will be treated individually and that there will be no blanket returns or refoulement. It is foreseen that decisions to detain asylum seekers or irregular migrants, and the conditions of the reception facilities where they are accommodated – whether they are open or closed – will comply with the relevant international instruments. It is crucial that those principles are respected without exception. The Committee of Ministers will continue to follow that closely.

      I would like to add something in my national capacity. The European Union was forced to deal with quite an unprecedented situation and to take measures in very difficult conditions. The agreement between the European Union and Turkey is a good first step towards the return of the control of the external borders of the Union and, of course, the creation of a mechanism for resettlement that has clear rules. Otherwise, as you know very well, the uncontrolled inflow of people was giving a lot of ground to populist and nationalist movements. The European citizens wanted, and continue to demand from us, control of the situation.

      We have also insisted that the agreement includes the idea that Turkey will not only co-operate in closing the eastern Mediterranean route – let us call it the Balkan route – but that it will participate and assist preventing the creation of new alternative routes throughout the length of its border with the European Union, which includes the Black Sea, the Bulgarian-Turkish border, the Greek-Turkish land border and so on. Of course, other engagements are taken there and we have all the assurances by the European institutions that, whatever measures are taken and whatever steps are taken to implement the agreement, it will be done in compliance with all the international norms. I reassure you that we will continue following this and will remain in dialogue with our colleagues from the European institutions to be sure that those standards are implemented.

      Ms MATEU (Andorra, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – When you began your chairmanship, you said that you wanted to promote the values and standards of unity and co-operation in the field of human rights, and the respect of rights, law and democracy. However, some frozen conflicts have unfrozen and have caused explosions that are difficult with some of our borders. Will you say something about concrete measures to defuse a number of frozen conflicts in our territories?

      Mr MITOV – That is quite a vast topic, and I am afraid that we will not have the time to exhaust it in its full length and dimension. The mandate of the Council of Europe is not to resolve conflicts, whether they are frozen or not. That is a matter for other international organisations. However, the Council of Europe has its role when it comes to conflicts that we might characterise as frozen and to conflicts in general. That being so, we must ensure that all people living in Europe can benefit from the protection granted by the Council of Europe’s instruments, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights.

      We know well that whatever the conflict is, we need somehow to think outside the box. The situation of frozen conflicts and other conflicts is quite unusual. Our main purpose is to ensure access to the existing instruments of the Council of Europe for the territories that we can qualify as frozen conflicts. We can use those instruments to assess the situation on the ground and to be sure that the citizens there benefit from the standards on which the Council of Europe stands. The topic will be addressed at the ministerial session in Sofia next month. I urge all my colleagues to take part in the discussion because we need to think about the instruments that the Council of Europe has and the ones that we might eventually invent to ensure access to those territories, and to be sure that we know who is responsible for what and that the citizens in those territories have guaranteed human rights.

      This might sound revolutionary to you but I believe that human rights stand above any other claims. Whatever the claim – territorial or whatever it may be – human rights come first and they must be safeguarded. You are right to ask about instruments and about certain actions. I hope that we can get into those topics in depth in the ministerial meeting in Sofia, because we need solutions to a lot of those open wounds in the heart of Europe.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I had two questions. The first was about Nadia Savchenko and you have already answered it. The second is about the rapid deterioration of human rights and democratic freedoms in Crimea, which is illegally occupied by the Russian Federation. We consider the recent decision of the Russian occupation authorities to suspend the activities of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people as the beginning of genocide. What practical steps will you take to protect the Mejlis and the Crimean Tatar people in general?

      Mr MITOV – This is an extremely important question, which relates to the previous question. As we all know, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe recently took the initiative, in response to a decision adopted by the Committee of Ministers last April, to send a human rights mission to Crimea. The purpose of the mission was to assess the situation on the ground, not to carry out a fully-fledged monitoring visit. The assessment was done from 25 to 31 January through meetings with numerous interlocutors. The report of the mission was presented to the Committee of Ministers last week. It does not deal with any issue relating to the status of Crimea – we need to be very clear about that.

      A very large number of delegates on the Committee of Ministers expressed their support for the Secretary General’s initiative. The strong hope is that this first step will lead to the re-opening of access to Crimea for the Council of Europe monitoring structures. Viable solutions must now be found to that end and I hope that such solutions can be worked out with the constructive engagement of all concerned parties. The Secretary General of course has my full support in any further dialogue with his counterparts. We all need to contribute to this dialogue. We all need to be involved and to ensure that first we have access – the mission was a good first step towards that – and then that we guarantee the protection of the human rights of the citizens on the ground, or that if there are any violations we are able to assess them, document them and take appropriate measures later on.

      Ms CHRISTODOULOPOULOU (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Do you believe that protecting borders is more important than the protection of refugees, their families and their children? Is it compatible with human rights protection to tolerate the actions of so-called headhunter teams who are operating on the Bulgarian-Turkish border?

      Mr MITOV – Migration is a common concern. A long-term working solution can be found only through common efforts in the spirit of understanding among all those affected, including endangered countries. As long as there is conflict in Syria and in the region, the refugee crisis will not go away. The efforts of the entire international community should be focused on ending hostilities in conflict zones, supporting institution-building, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

      We cannot prioritise between the protection of human rights and the protection of borders, but the protection of borders is indeed an important task for any sovereign State and/or union of sovereign States. We therefore cannot allow ourselves not to protect our borders, but we also need to be very firm on the protection of the rights of refugees. Let me make this distinction: among the influx of people there are refugees to whom we have an obligation – that is clear. We have a very different approach for others who are economic migrants. This distinction needs to be clear. We also need to be very vigilant in how we deal with those two separate categories of people.

      On the situation in Bulgaria, I reassure you that having vigilantes guarding the borders and so on is completely intolerable. That has not been, and never will be, tolerated by the Bulgarian authorities. Those groups have already been put under surveillance and called to face the consequences of their actions in accordance with Bulgarian law. That has been expressed by many high-level Bulgarian authorities and we will of course stay there. I repeat that we are in a very difficult and unprecedented situation that might lead to the creation of phenomena that could be considered undesirable. We know there are similar situations throughout the whole European continent – maybe not exactly the same, but there are others. We need to be sure that we act in a way that does not feed populist or nationalist movements, which are waiting for such moments in order to profit from them politically.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – On 1 April this year, in a district in Sofia where a number of refugees live, a banner was tied to a scaffold at the entrance of a house; it said, “Refugees not welcome here”. Apparently the authorities did not intervene, stating that it had been placed at the entrance of a private property. I wonder whether you are able to provide us with more information on this incident, the context of which is worrying to all member States of the Council of Europe.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – Lyutvi Mestan, who headed the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the third-biggest political group in the Bulgarian Parliament, said that Russia’s violation of Turkish airspace amounted to a violation of the sovereignty of NATO territory. Because of that, Mr Mestan was ousted from his post and expelled from the party. Do you think that that decision complies with the principles of democracy and freedom of speech?

      Mr MITOV – I shall be very quick on both questions.

      The first question is a cause for concern. I need to inform myself a little bit better on that specific case. I undertake to send a written reply on the measures taken in that case.

      On the second question about the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, Mr Mestan and his political declarations, and the fact that he was expelled from the party – he is forming another party right now – this is an internal party political matter, with bickering and processes, in Bulgaria. To be fair, I am not here to comment on internal party issues, especially parties that are not my own. Whatever Mr Mestan has said, he has said it. That is his political position.

If his party did not like what he said, it has internal party mechanisms to deal with that. To be fair, this matter should probably not be a concern for the Council of Europe at all.

      The PRESIDENT – That brings to an end questions to Mr Mitov.

      Thank you once again, Mr Mitov, for all your efforts. I am sure that we will continue to co-operate closely both during the rest of your chairmanship and afterwards.

3. Address by Mr José Manuel García-Margallo, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Spain

      The PRESIDENT – I now welcome Mr José Manuel García-Margallo, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Spain, who will address the Assembly. Mr García-Margallo will then answer questions from members of the Assembly.

      (The speaker continued in Spanish.)

      Dear colleagues, we now have occasion to welcome the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation in office of the Kingdom of Spain, Mr José Manuel García-Margallo.

      Dear Minister, friend and comrade, Spain has been a key actor in the development of the Council of Europe since it was incorporated into the Council almost 40 years ago. I have no doubt that part of the success of the process of democratic transition that our country then entered into is owed to the generous role that the Parliamentary Assembly deployed together with the whole institution. Likewise, 20 years later that generosity was expressed to countries of central and eastern Europe that tried to find democratic forms for the future of their societies. The challenges that now face Europe are not few. The principal threats, unlike 40 years ago, come from the outside, but have reinforced our spirit of co-operation and concord and the search for peace and our common good.

      Welcome, Minister. We eagerly await your remarks and thoughts. The floor is yours.

      Mr GARCÍA-MARGALLO (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Spain)* – President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation to speak to you at this Assembly today.

      The Council of Europe is very important for all Europeans, but especially for Spaniards and also eastern Europeans. That is the case for a very simple reason: since 1949, it has embodied the substantial shared values of the idea of Europe: respect for human rights and the rule of law. Those are values that Spaniards and eastern Europeans did not hold for too long a period.

      There is a famous etching by Goya called “The Dream of Reason Produces Monsters”. Goya told us that when reason quits, or falls asleep, there is room for the presence in its stead of the worst demons of our nature. Some 70 years ago, humanity woke not from a dream, but from a nightmare. Power exercised untrammelled by law and untempered by reason had produced the monsters of the Second World War and the Holocaust. Law is the reason of States. I refer here to law as expressed through the formal channels of a democratic State with the rule of law, through the legitimate representatives of national sovereignties. When those channels are deviated from, or the reason of law is set aside, Goya’s monsters are ready to pounce.

      As I said, the Council of Europe was important for all Europeans, but it has been particularly so for us Spaniards. Of course I want to thank the Assembly for the prize awarded yesterday to the immortal city of Girona as the city most active in the promotion of the European ideal. As the President pointed out, the Council of Europe has inspired and accompanied Spain from the dawn of our contemporary democratic era. Spain entered into the Council of Europe on 24 November 1977, only five months after the first free and democratic elections were held since 1936 and one year before the approval of the 1978 constitution. The admission of Spain into the Council of Europe was an act of complete trust. Its members believed in us when we said that we wanted to establish a fundamental norm that would cast the seal of reconciliation and establish the foundation for the co-existence of Spaniards in freedom – a reconciliation foreseen by Salvador de Madariaga at the Munich congress that had taken place 15 years before. Madariaga said at the time, “Those who in the past chose freedom and lost their country, and those who chose their country and lost their freedom, have come together to tread the path that will lead us to our land and our freedom.” Madariaga’s dream became a reality thanks to some political leaders who placed the interest of Spain above any consideration of groups or parties.

      In the 40 years since, transcendental changes have occurred in Europe, including overcoming the painful and unjust division of the Iron Curtain. Those 40 years coincide with the most successful period of Spain’s contemporary history. In that time, Spain has transformed itself politically, socially and economically. It has found a Europe from which it had stood at a distance for too long.

      Although there have been good periods over those years, we have had to overcome challenges such as the terrible scourge of terrorism. In 1960, 56 years ago, a 22-month-old girl, Begoña Urroz, died as a result of a bomb explosion in a railway station carried out by ETA, the Basque terrorist separatist group. Since then, 850 human beings – men, women and children – have lost their lives as a consequence of ETA’s terrorist folly. That is a crime against humanity. All forms of terrorism arise from hatred of and contempt for life.

      Evil manifests itself in different ways according to circumstances and historical periods. Spain suffered again on 11 March 2004, when 190 people of various nationalities – largely workers – were assassinated, and more than 1,800 people were wounded. Today, jihadist terrorism is embodied in Daesh. It is an organisation that uses terror, but it is not only a terrorist organisation. Daesh controls territories in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Boko Haram has sworn fidelity to the caliphate of Raqqa. In those territories, Daesh exercises the functions of a State and is funded by the sources it obtains there, while recruiting fighters throughout the world and using social networks to spread its doctrine. It threatens us all, as we have seen recently in Brussels, Paris and Istanbul.

      One cannot negotiate with terrorists; one must defeat them, but only through the law. Military interventions are not sufficient. It is necessary to combat radicalisation, which leads young people to feed the ranks of terrorist organisations. Spain makes available its own experience in the effort to combat this scourge. We have the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, the Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna and the Union for the Mediterranean.

      I now come to a more general consideration of terrorism. Through our own experience, we Spaniards know that it is essential to keep alive the memory of victims, so that horror does not repeat itself. On too many occasions, we have seen victims presented as guilty and as meriting their sacrifice. In order for victims’ voices to reach every corner of the world, it is important that the doors of this Council are always open to them, for the sake of memory, dignity and justice.

      The constitutional model of the Kingdom of Spain is based upon the recognition of the right to autonomy of nationalities and regions that are part of the Spanish nation, and upon solidarity between them. Pursuant to that model, the autonomous governments exercise a considerable jurisdiction at a much higher level than in the majority of decentralised States. Spanish languages distinct from Castilian enjoy special protection pursuant to our constitution. Calls for democratic legitimacy of secessionist aspirations ignore respect of legality and take us back to the obscure period of imposition by force.

      Claudio Magris, an Italian professor who obtained the Príncipe de Asturias prize for literature, said that to counterpose legitimacy with legality and to call upon values such as community and effective immediacy as opposed to those of democracies means destroying the rules of the political game that allow people to fight for the values they consider sacrosanct. I add this: the declarations of independence that trample underfoot domestic law are incompatible with the proposals and principles of the charter signed in San Francisco. That is precisely what the declaration approved by consensus by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23 October 2015 says. The declaration reiterates that respect for territorial sovereignty and integrity of States is a fundamental pillar of guaranteeing peace and international security.

      Furthermore, unilateral declarations of independence are, by definition, contrary to the values embedded in the Treaty of London of 1949 establishing the Council of Europe, including the central value of the rule of law. Far from reinforcing the political rights of all, such declarations deprive millions of citizens, who would thus be reduced against their will to strangers in their own land. Unilateral declarations of independence are incompatible with the achievement of European unity, which is at the foundation of the Council of Europe and the European Union. That European ideal was inspired by the principle of solidarity. David Allen, who is one of the major experts in this field, said that the European economic system could overcome the effects of a redistributive structural policy, but that the political project of the European Union would not survive. To close this chapter, I thank the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Jagland, for his ongoing support in the defence of constitutional legality as a democratic requisite, which he confirmed just two hours ago.

      Light dominates darkness in other fields. I am thinking of the challenge of climate change, its negative effects on the environment and the very survival of vulnerable communities. Of course, time is pressing, but concrete measures were adopted at the Paris Summit to stop the deterioration of our common home. For the trend of climate change to be reversed, we need a sustainable and equitable growth model that leaves no one aside. Hope is beginning to transform into a reality thanks to the adoption of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Possibly for the first time in the history of humanity, we are in a position to make a reality of economic development based on three pillars: economic freedom and efficiency, social inclusion and respect for the environment. That is Keynes’s old dream. I should add that I place myself among those who believe that that inclusive development is possible only if we include women, but women’s participation requires active policies. As was said recently by the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, equality is not obvious, and it does not happen all by itself.

      The international economic crisis has struck hard at the most vulnerable sectors of our societies. The proliferation of conflict is at the root of population displacement, both internally and externally. It is has not occurred on that scale since the Second World War. Those two phenomena oblige us to adopt measures that cannot be stayed. Our action should be guided by the principle of solidarity and respect for the fundamental rights of those who have suffered in the crisis, and those on our shores who look for a better future. His Holiness the Pope taught us a simple lesson on the occasion of his visit to the island of Lesbos, and governments should take note of it – the Government of Spain will do so.

      That painful exodus will not end until we end the conflicts that provoke them – I am thinking of Syria, Mali and Libya, but also of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which is used by many as an excuse to export pain. When Spain presided over the United Nations Security Council, we proposed an international conference to bring together the parties to that conflict with the international community – a sort of Madrid II, 25 years after the Madrid summit. France has taken up the idea and I hope it turns into a reality.

      In Europe, the conflict in Ukraine has prevented us from developing a strategic association with Russia, which would have been tremendously beneficial for world security and stability. With total respect for the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the human rights of all persons, including those living in Crimea, Spain hopes that the Minsk Agreements will be fully applied and that elections with full guarantees take place in the Donbass area. To conclude this aside, I formally ask of the Russian authorities for the prompt release of Nadia Savchenko, a member of this Parliamentary Assembly and of the European People’s Party.

      Spain is and will always be a reliable member of the Council of Europe. Spain is for a united Europe based on the values of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European social charter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the constitutional legal traditions of its member States. In other words, Spain is for the consolidation of the European system of human rights, which is strengthened in this city of Strasbourg. The world and Europe are better today than they were 70 years ago. European citizens feel more secure, freer and strengthened in their rights, but we are far from attaining perfection. To keep moving forward on that path of constant improvement, we have to respect the values and principles that are defended by the Council of Europe. When we ignore those values and principles, the monsters of Goya rise and show their ugly faces. As history has taught us, to avoid that, it is necessary to have law and reason. We should always be alert, and there should always be dialogue, conciliation and conviviality. Without that, we remain open to the storms.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We now have questions for Minister García-Margallo. I remind members that questions should be a maximum of 30 seconds long. I ask members to put questions and not to make speeches.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – Thank you very much, Minister, for your statement. I have a very specific question. You touched on the refugee crisis. Does Spain have a contribution to make, and how does Spain intend to make that contribution to resolving the refugee crisis?

      Mr GARCÍA-MARGALLO* – Spain has contributed to the European Union agreement with Turkey and has required respect for international legality and the exclusion of collective expulsions. We believe that asylum seekers should be treated as individuals. The European Council, which is made up of Heads of State and Governments, decided to qualify Turkey as a secure, safe country. There are two distinct aspects to the question: people who seek refuge within the European Union and people who are outside, such as those who are in Turkey, but who seek asylum on our shores. Spain made an offer to Greece to take in 150 persons, if my memory is correct. We have 87 requests and whether they come soon or not depends on the Greek authorities. We have another important undertaking with Italy to take in people who are seeking refuge. To be very sincere, those proceedings are sequential and start in the countries where the refugees are, such as Turkey. Under European Community legislation, the centres in Greece and Italy – the hotspots – should identify and register asylum seekers and then redistribute them to countries in the European Union.

      I have one final consideration. The European Union-Turkey Agreement is an emergency solution but not a final one. As you know, the Commission has started two initiatives on modifying the Dublin Regulation to establish a European asylum agency. We have not established a common mechanism, but we have set up an emergency brake for countries whose capacity to take in refugees is overrun. Our efforts are insufficient, which we can see clearly when we compare what European countries are doing with what other countries such as Lebanon are doing. Lebanon’s per capita income is a fifth of that of the European Union, but Lebanon gives refuge to more than 25% of the Syrian refugee population. Those figures cannot be compared, but there is no European policy on asylum or immigration. We need more, not less of Europe on this.

      Ms QUÉRÉ (France, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Spain, because of its geography and history, has special relations with Africa. You announced that next week you would go to Libya to support the Government of National Unity, and Russia has invited Spain to join the international support group to find a solution to the situation in Syria. In that context, what role can Spain play and what role would it like to play after the Arab Spring gave rise to so much hope?

      Mr GARCĺA-MARGALLO* – You underscore the fact that Spain has special relations with northern African countries. Those relations have allowed to us control migratory phenomena pretty satisfactorily without creating problems for our European associates. We had the fastest flow of migrants to our country in the least time registered in history. From 2000, regular and irregular migrants were 13% of the population – more than 5 million people. When the crisis occurred, the first to suffer its effects were migrant workers, who did the lowest-paid jobs in the Spanish labour scale.

      However, a joint Netherlands and Spain document presented in Valletta stated that immigration is an integral phenomenon that must be broached from different angles. It is essential to collaborate with countries of origin and transit, to have border controls to avoid irregular immigration, to establish a means of regular immigration, and to retain those immigrants in the societies in which they live to avoid ghettoes, which exist in some European countries. That policy has been very successful in the past four years. We have collaborated with Morocco, Mauritania and Senegal. In 2015, the increase in irregular immigration was 15%. In Italy, the figure was more than 270% as a fundamental consequence of events in Libya. There is also the position in the western Balkans.

      In Libya, I hope that things are better than expected. Prime Minister Sarraj has been set up there, and there have been many visits from European Union Ministers and ambassadors, including the Spanish ambassador. The General National Congress of the Islamist parliament has been dissolved and there is now a Council of State with advisory functions. The government that hailed from that congress and was not recognised by the international community has been dissolved. In the meantime, the House of Representatives has not been convened to ratify the Government of National Unity. However, it is important to note that Prime Minister Sarraj’s Government already controls the central bank, the national oil company and the company that deals with Libya’s financial assets abroad. It has undertaken not to fund the conflict, as was done until now, but to fund only those sides that collaborate with pacification. We hope that the House of Representatives will ratify the Government, which will then be able to ask for aid from the Security Council. That might give rise to a resolution that would help the Government.

      In Syria, things are not so good. I got a telegram from my embassy today, which said that part of the opposition has quit the negotiating table in Geneva. The opinion of the Spanish Government, which is not shared by all European Union Governments, is that we should replace the expression, “Bashir al-Assad yes or Bashir al-Assad no” with “peace yes or peace no”. The opposition and the regime should hold dialogue and follow the road map that we have formulated so that in six months, there will be a legal framework, which will establish Syria’s future, and in 18 months, transparent and free elections. We must see whether Bashir al-Assad will contribute to the elections. Russia’s attitude is clear. The majority in the west say that Bashir al-Assad must be part of the negotiations but that he cannot be part of Syria’s future. Another point is that the Alawite community to which he belongs must have a place in the sun in the new Syria, which will be free, secular and democratic.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – In Castilian we say, “Dime de que presumes y te diré de que careces” – “Tell me what you have and I’ll tell you what you lack.” I will not enter into the debate that you suggested about the strength of democracy.

      Today is Wednesday’s control session of the parliament. I asked you a question six months ago, and today I will ask you a new question in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In our Assembly, we have debates on frozen conflicts, such as Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia. What are your proposals for frozen conflicts?

      Mr GARCĺA-MARGALLO* – Mr Xuclá, you were invited to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a working lunch so that I could tell you the government’s criteria for this sector, taking into consideration that our legislation prevents a government from being controlled, but something cause a breakdown in the dialogue with you. I turned up, and my Secretary of State was also there, to explain the agreement between the European Union and Turkey. It is not possible in this context to talk about all the frozen conflicts, but I can say one thing that could apply to them all. In all these conflicts, it is important to seek the principle of territorial integrity – in Mali, in Syria, in Iraq and Ukraine, and also in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Secondly, the international community should be more active in all those conflicts.

      According to the United Nations, self-determination applies in only three cases: colonial cases; when territories are occupied militarily; and when fundamental rights are denied to the citizen. Those are the three principles of self-determination. Otherwise the territorial principle dominates, as stated in the San Francisco charter, and Articles 4 and 49 of the treaty of the European Union.

      Mr Xuclá, respect for the law and for the established channels is essential. In all written constitutions of the world with two exceptions – Ethiopia and Canada – the principle of territorial integrity dominates. That can be changed only by those constitutions. In Spain, that can happen only by changing the constitution by procedures established under the constitution.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Minister, per capita in Spain you have fewer cases for the European Court of Human Rights than other States do. This may well reflect the success of changes in your own legal system, which, when compared with those elsewhere, lays greater stress on the role of victims of terrorist actions and certain other crimes. In these connections, therefore, what advice would you give the Council of Europe and its affiliated States?

      Mr GARCÍA-MARGALLO* – Spain availed itself of its rotating presidency to discuss the issue of victims of terrorism for the first time at the United Nations. There was a victim of Boko Haram, a victim of ETA and victims of Daesh terrorism in Iran. We all agreed then that the presence of the victims is fundamental in order to build an alternative to the narrative that terrorists circulate to justify their assassinations, crimes and atrocities. This is what the Council of Europe does and my advice is: do not ever forget the victims – for the reasons of memory, dignity and justice but also in order effectively to combat the terrorist narrative.

Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Minister, I am glad that you mentioned Spain’s ongoing attempts to organise an international conference to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You said that France has now taken up this initiative. In this respect, what role do you see for the European Union now that American attempts clearly have failed and the situation is quickly deteriorating? Do you foresee that in the near future the member States of the European Union will recognise the State of Palestine, as our parliament – and your parliament – have asked?

      Mr GARCÍA-MARGALLO* – The idea proposed by Spain, which has been picked up by France, is that since the Madrid conference that gave rise to the Oslo process there have been negotiations between the parties and many resolutions and decisions of the international community but the parties have never sat together in the presence of the international community. We think that this is now urgent because if things continue on the current path, the two-State solution will not be possible even physically if the West Bank continues to be split from the Gaza Strip. To say that there is only one possible alternative solution – a single multinational State – satisfies none of the parties; obviously not the Palestinians, who have been fighting for their own State since 1948, but nor will it satisfy the Israelis, who would have their rights restricted and in the medium term would be a minority in this multinational State. We have to get out of the impasse.

      The European Union, which is the main donor in Palestine and has great influence in Israel, should play its role. The United States should be present but the European Union has to be present as well, with a greater role than now. It is in the Quartet and it has to play a greater role. The member States that want to associate themselves with this initiative should be welcomed. At the Congress of Deputies Spain adopted – unanimously among all the political parties – a resolution with a view to recognising the State of Palestine soon. This recognition would serve to resolve problems, not to create fresh problems. That is the position of Spain currently.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – Minister, Catalonia is pulsing with a powerful independence movement but there is no provision for independence under the Spanish constitution, as you pointed out. What needs to be changed in constitutional law and the administrative organisation of Spain in order to satisfy the emergence of these regions that embody the richness and diversity of your country, while remaining compliant with the national and European context?

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS (Spain)* – Minister, I note with satisfaction that your position in government, which does not allow you to appear at the Congress of Deputies, does not prevent you coming to our Assembly. I am very happy to put a question to you. We are both outside Spain for the purposes of the question. I would like to ask you about what we found out last Monday with regard to the possibility of the European Union having a deal on migrants with Libya similar to that with Turkey. What do you have to say about that?

      Mr GARCÍA-MARGALLO* – In response to the first question, as you know, the result of the recent election for the purposes of electing an autonomous parliament which would elect an autonomous government as established under the constitution and the statute of Catalonia did not give a majority of votes – only 47% – to those in favour of independence, although it is curious to find out that one can claim that a very close majority is tantamount to a declaration of independence. Furthermore, Article 222 of the statute of Catalonia, voted by the Catalonian Parliament, says that to modify the statute, two thirds of votes are required. If you want to modify partial aspects of the statute you need two thirds of seats so I cannot understand how you can proclaim independence with a simple majority.

      Secondly, the result of the self-determination referendum is not pertinent. The referendum has to tally with the constitution. If you follow the theory that a majority can call for a declaration of independence, this Assembly should be able to accept the annexation of Crimea by Russia or the situations in Mali, Syria and Iraq, and this would mean a Balkanisation of the world which would imperil the stability of humanity. Within the constitution, everything is possible. If there are parties in Catalonia who want to obtain the principle of self-determination on the path to reform of the constitution under the conditions established by the constitution, we will resolve these problems. The will of the government, the nation and the major national parties, including the socialists, is to resolve the problem in a consensual dialogue within the framework of the law.

      Ms Rodríguez Ramos, you are familiar with Montesquieu’s idea of the separation of powers. It is not the government that has stated that it cannot subject itself to a review session but the legal services of the parliament. You have to know what was said. As a consequence of the elections and the dissolution of the chamber, there is a breach of confidence between the government and the chamber which entails the impossibility of requiring political responsibility through mechanisms of censorship, confidence votes or ordinary general control. The government respects the separation of powers and legality, as, I am sure, do the parties represented in this Chamber. Nothing prevents me from coming to speak to you here, Ms Rodríguez Ramos, and I am delighted to do so; I am thankful to the Council of Europe for this opportunity. I have also been able to speak with the spokespersons for foreign policy, and will speak with a senator soon. Believe you me, Ms Rodríguez Ramos – you have known me for a long time – I very much wish to speak. I thank you personally and will be available to you when you want.

      On Libya, I do not think that what was referred to has occurred at all – I am not aware of it. Perhaps there is a request from the legitimate government. Do not forget that other countries intend to follow a precedent of this kind, but that is not the case here.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We have extended your time by 10 minutes. I thank you warmly for your responses to the questions raised by members.

      (Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Agramunt.)

4. Joint Debate:A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis, Human rights of refugees and migrants - the situation in the Western Balkans, debate under urgent procedure: The situation of refugees and migrants under the European Union-Turkey Agreement of 18 March 2016

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate on three reports from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. The first is entitled “A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis”, Document 14014, and is presented by Ms Annette Groth. The second is entitled “Human rights of refugees and migrants – the situation in the Western Balkans”, Document 14013, and is presented by Ms Tineke Strik. The third is the report we agreed to debate under urgent procedure entitled “The situation of refugees and migrants under the European Union-Turkey agreement of 18 March 2016”, Document 14028, and is also presented by Ms Tineke Strik.

      May I remind the Assembly that we have agreed that speaking time in all debates in this session will be limited to three minutes?

      We will aim to finish this item by about 7.55 p.m. Therefore I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 7.15 p.m. to allow time for the replies to the debate and the votes.

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

      Ms GROTH (Germany) – For the past five years, Syria has been in the grip of a brutal civil war. Close to half a million people have been killed; around one in every nine people has been killed or injured. More than 6.5 million Syrians have been displaced within their country, and more than 4.8 million have fled as refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis is the biggest in the world, and so far the European response has been inadequate.

      My report looks at the situation in three neighbouring countries that have borne a disproportionate responsibility for protecting and caring for Syrian refugees. Jordan hosts about 1.3 million Syrian refugees, which represents around 10% of the population. Lebanon hosts around 1.5 million Syrian refugees, which represents one quarter of the population. Turkey hosts more than 2.7 million refugees – the largest refugee population in the world. Let us not forget that all three countries also host large numbers of other refugees, from Palestine, Iraq and other countries.

      The efforts and sacrifices made by the people of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey put Europe’s contribution to shame. None of these countries is as rich as those of western Europe, and all of them have their own problems that make it even more difficult to support so many refugees. All three countries – Jordan and Lebanon in particular – have suffered economically because of the Syrian conflict. They lost an important trading partner, their revenues from tourism decreased substantially and trade routes to other countries are closed. The presence of so many refugees, the vast majority of whom do not live in camps – in Lebanon, none of them does – has led to increases in rental costs for accommodation, decreases in wages for lower-paid jobs, pressure on public services such as health care, education and sanitation, and environmental degradation. In Jordan in particular, water resources are close to being depleted.

      The host populations, especially the poorest, have suffered as a result of such large communities of Syrian refugees, but the Syrian refugees themselves are in a much worse situation. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey do not recognise Syrians as refugees under the 1951 convention, and Syrians do not enjoy full refugee rights in any of these countries. For most, it is difficult if not impossible to afford decent accommodation. Many, especially mothers, are under-nourished, as the aid from the World Food Programme has been cut below subsistence levels. There are problems of access to health care and, for children, of access to education. Syrian refugees are not permitted to work in Jordan and Lebanon, and only very recently has the law been changed in Turkey. So far fewer than 1% of Syrian refugees have obtained permits there.

      Poverty and debt have forced many refugees to work irregularly, which exposes them to various forms of exploitation. Children are often sent out to work, instead of to school, in the belief that they will not be punished for working irregularly. Parents agree to marry their under-age daughters to older men, in the desperate hope that they will be better protected and have some income, even though child marriage is a violation of basic rights. Women and girls are sexually exploited through so-called “temporary marriages” – a flimsy cover for prostitution.

      It is all too easy for us, as Europeans, to be critical of the shortcomings in how these countries protect Syrian refugees. But we must be honest with ourselves and accept that no European country faces the same responsibilities and burdens. Nevertheless, the authorities of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are not beyond reproach. All three have restricted access to protection at their borders and place unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles before refugees’ basic rights. At the moment there are about 50 000 Syrian refugees at the Syria-Jordan border who are trying to get into Jordan but they are denied access. We should be very clear that all countries must allow refugees who seek protection to enter their territory. That is a human duty.

      When it comes to material support, Europe is also on weak ground morally. Europe and the international community as a whole must provide far more financial support to humanitarian organisations operating in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Alongside that, Europe must open humanitarian pathways not only for resettlement of substantial numbers of Syrian refugees but for family reunification, student visas and other forms of entry.

      I would like to draw particular attention to one group of Syrian refugees who are particularly vulnerable and widely forgotten. Approximately 20% of the 560 000 Palestinian refugees who lived in Syria before the conflict have been forced to leave the country. For some of them it is the third time that they have been driven from their homes. Palestinians are excluded from the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) everywhere because UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine), the United Nations body responsible for Palestinian refugees, has a mandate to care for them. Palestinians are often not recognised or treated as Syrian refugees in Europe, even when they have papers that prove that they had been long-term residents of Syria. Many of them are regarded as stateless and get offered much less than other refugees in our countries. It is crucial that that group is not forgotten and that special efforts are made to meet their needs. They should all be recognised as refugees in our countries.

      A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis means that Europe must accept its responsibilities and mobilise its vast resources. Desperate measures, such as the seriously ill-judged European Union-Turkey agreement, are not acceptable responses; they are nothing more than a rejection of moral and political responsibility and a denial of simple geographic realities. We need to give realistic levels of support to the neighbouring countries, large-scale resettlement and humane border policies. Those are our moral duties, and they are the only approach that can prevent a crisis from becoming a catastrophe for the Middle East, with long-term consequences that Europe will not be able to escape.

      The refugee camps established in Turkey need to be carefully surveyed. In the Maraş region, the authorities are establishing a refugee camp for 27 000 Syrian refugees. The camp is surrounded by a few Alevi Kurdish villages with a population of only 5 000 people. Those people were neither informed nor consulted about the refugee camp and now they fear they are being pushed out of their home region. The Alevi were often persecuted in the past, so we should carefully scrutinise the human rights situation not only of refugees but also of minorities. In all countries the safeguarding of human rights for inhabitants and refugees is crucial and we as the Council of Europe have the moral duty to protest loudly against all violations of human rights, whether of the indigenous population or of refugees.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Groth. You have 3 minutes remaining.

      I call Ms Strik, rapporteur, to present her two reports on “Human rights of refugees and migrants – the situation in the Western Balkans” and on “The situation of refugees and migrants under the European Union-Turkey Agreement of 18 March 2016”. You have 26 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the reports and reply to the debate.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Thank you, President. I will present the report on the western Balkan countries first and then the report on the European Union-Turkey agreement.

      Today we face a unique number of refugees worldwide – 60 million – and almost 90% of them live in fragile regions close to conflict zones. In the last 5 years the Syrian war alone has produced 12 million refugees of whom 8 million are displaced in vulnerable circumstances in Syria and 4 million are hosted in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Those neighbouring countries cannot offer so many refugees sufficient protection and the means to build a new life, as we heard from Ms Groth. After four years of waiting to return, and still without any perspective to a new future, last summer refugees started to move first to Greece, and from there via the Western Balkans to northern Europe. Initially that caused confusion and unsafe situations, but the large numbers forced the authorities to shift from controlling their borders to a waving through policy, regulating the route by use of transit camps, buses and trains. You must all have seen pictures of groups of refugees, many of whom were children, elderly and sick people, eager to pass through as fast as possible before the border closed again.

      When I travelled that same route and spoke with many organisations and refugees, everywhere I heard the same story: refugees want only to pass through, not to stay. Every country depended on its neighbour on its northern border to keep the borders open. If a border closed, the southern countries would have to do the same. We saw a unique phenomenon in the Western Balkan countries, but the causes were very clear: a large number of refugees in the overburdened neighbouring countries of Syria, and a lack of legal ways to travel to other safe destinations.

      Until now, Europe has not taken its fair share of refugees. I will give you three examples. First, the relocation agreements made in September 2015 for 160 000 refugees were simply not complied with; fewer than 1 300 have been relocated up to now. Secondly, most European countries offered hardly any pledges for resettlement. A number of 22 000 was promised for Turkey but until now only about 4 000 refugees have been invited. Thirdly, family reunification for refugees has been made harder instead of easier. If no solution is offered to a humanitarian crisis, refugees will seek their own solutions, and that is what they did.

      It is understandable that the European countries were looking for a more structured response than the waving through policy, but instead of agreeing on fair distribution, the European Union gradually started to close the borders again without putting into practice any alternative measures. In February, refugees were all of a sudden trapped in the north of Greece. At the moment 50 000 asylum seekers are staying on the Greek mainland with no asylum procedure or reception centre to turn to and no relocation system that could take them to a safe destination. Many of the refugees who are still staying in the Idomeni camp near the Macedonian border may have to wait for years to get permission to be reunited with family members in northern Europe.

      What made the countries close their borders again? A combination of factors did so, including criticism from the northern countries, which introduced quotas or restricted their border policy in other ways; and the message of Mr Juncker, the head of the European Commission, that gave approval to the Balkan countries to close their borders to Greece. That appeared to be part of a bigger plan to increase pressure on Greece and Turkey to stop the migration, but it was not accompanied with actions to offer refugees the support and safety they needed. That pressure, at the cost of refugees trapped in no man’s land, may have contributed to the conclusion of the European Union-Turkey agreement of 18 March.

      I will now present the second report, on the European Union-Turkey agreement. The aim of the European Union in the agreement was one-dimensional – to stop the irregular migration to the European Union. It is quite cynical that the two countries that are to execute the agreement already have a huge burden to carry. Turkey is already hosting 3 million refugees and Greece has had a failing asylum system for years. Due to the financial crisis, it also has difficulties in building adequate procedures and reception capacity.

      Yesterday, in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, I heard some colleagues saying that we should not criticise the European Union-Turkey agreement because at least it will mean less migrant smuggling. I strongly disagree. There are alternative measures to combat smuggling and prevent migrants from drowning, which are in accordance with human rights. It is also likely that this agreement, like earlier experiences with fences, will merely lead to shifting routes, which are even more dangerous for migrants and more beneficial for smugglers. This so-called refugee crisis is a test for Europe, but not a test for border control; it is a test of whether or not we are prepared to live up to our principles and respect the legal standards that we have set for ourselves. The agreement as a whole fails that test; it is a legal mess, and it is undermining solidarity.

      What is wrong with the agreement? Let us look at the consequences. First, the European Union’s hot spots on the Greek islands, initially meant for reallocation of the refugees, have become prison camps. All new arrivals are systematically detained, including women with babies and young children, unaccompanied minors, and sick and traumatised people. Only a few are transferred to other facilities. Detention conditions are deplorable, with inadequate medical care and basic provisions. UNHCR and international NGOs have withdrawn in protest at the conversion of the camps into detention centres. That is very telling. Such detention is unlawful because a legal basis is lacking and because of the inadequate conditions.

      Secondly, involuntary returns of asylum seekers to Turkey are not in compliance with European Union or international law. For Syrians, it is very questionable whether Turkey can be considered a “first country of asylum” under the terms of European Union law: it does not provide “sufficient” protection, since Syrians have only temporary protection and do not enjoy all the rights of refugees. For asylum seekers of any nationality, including Syrians, Turkey cannot be considered a "safe third country" under the terms of European Union law. That is a legal definition and it implies that the country has ratified the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. As we know, Turkey did not lift the geographical limitation to that convention. Non-Europeans cannot request or receive refugee status with the refugee passport and other rights. The Turkish asylum system is not yet fully operational and any protection status is temporary, and offers fewer rights than the refugee convention. Furthermore, there have been credible reports of asylum seekers being returned from Turkey, without having their claims examined – in other words, refoulement.

      Let me be clear: I acknowledge and appreciate the hosting and generous policy of Turkey, and I am sure the whole Assembly agrees with me. But the strict terms of European Union asylum law are not yet satisfied. As a result, Greece cannot return asylum seekers without violating European Union and human rights law. And by creating even more pressure on Turkey with this agreement, we take a big risk that the position of refugees there will deteriorate instead of being improved. This could even lead to Syrian citizens finding themselves stuck in their own country, with no possibility of escaping the violence.

      The unlawful detention in Greece and the recent returns are especially problematic as we consider the dysfunctional state of the Greek asylum system, which lacks sufficient legal aid and judiciary. The European Court of Human Rights judged in 2011 that it was unlawful to return asylum seekers to Greece because of the failures of its asylum system and its awful detention and reception conditions. The Committee of Ministers is still supervising execution of the Court’s judgment, as Greece has not yet made the progress necessary to avoid repetition of the same violations. But this is the asylum system that the European Union is depending on to ensure the proper reception, detention where necessary, and processing of thousands of asylum seekers, applying difficult legal principles that have only just been introduced into Greek law – and are not even used in other European member States – under accelerated procedures that increase the risk of mistakes. My report goes into all of these issues, and more, in detail.

      The neighbouring countries of war zones will always host the most refugees. It is crucial to support Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and to disburse the financial assistance we promised without any delay. But we cannot simply “sell” our responsibility to transit countries. We need to take a fair share, by offering substantial numbers of refugees a legal route, via resettlement from outside the European Union, via relocation from Greece and Italy, and via generous family reunification policies. The European States need to relieve the pressure on transit countries with a generous and binding resettlement policy. The current pledges mentioned in the agreement are far too little – 72 000 refugees, compared to 3 million in Turkey – but also very insecure as member States have not yet agreed to use the pledges for resettlement from Turkey. For every pledge beyond the 72 000, there is not even the beginning of an agreement among the European Union member States. Keeping the failed relocation agreement in mind, we can be quite sceptical about the real solidarity and commitment that the European Union now has to show.

      For those colleagues tempted to think that the Agreement is an acceptable compromise, I encourage you to read the report. The Council of Europe and this Assembly were established to defend basic principles – principles that the European Union-Turkey Agreement does not satisfy. I therefore call on you all to support this resolution and to stand up for what you believe in.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Strik. You will have 13 minutes to reply to the debate.

      I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I speak on behalf of the Socialist Group, not as an Austrian representative, so I will not talk about the situation as it pertains to Austria.

      I express my support for the rapporteurs, who have put their finger on a most serious situation in regard to ensuring that the human rights expressed in the Geneva Convention are respected throughout Europe. It is total organ failure as far as Europe is concerned. Look at Syria and the numbers who have reached Europe – it is not even 10% of the internally displaced persons or those who have had to flee Syria and move to neighbouring countries. We do not have anything like a sense of common European solidarity. It is very worrying. We should not forget countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq, which have taken in Syrian refugees. If we look at what those countries have done to come to the assistance of refugees, in dire straits and difficult circumstances – given all the consequences and problems it leads to – we Europeans have to ask, “What have we done and what have we contributed?” We have taken in 1 million people. Of course, we have a different system in Europe – a better developed, socially differentiated system – when it comes to basic provision and access to the labour market. We have a highly diversified system. However, more than one quarter of the current population of Lebanon is made up of refugees. They are perhaps not given the services that might be expected in Europe, and access to education for child refugees is virtually out of the question.

      Only a small percentage of those who have fled to Turkey are in camps and they just have to fend for themselves. Many refugees are in Jordan. In 1917, the Balfour report talked about extreme water scarcity in the whole region. Only Syria and Lebanon have water. That shows how alarming the situation is. The European Union-Turkey agreement will only exacerbate problems. The rapporteur said that the Dublin Regulation has been invoked, but not to return refugees to Greece. The number of refugees we will be taking in in years to come will correspond to 1.5% of our population. If we stepped up our efforts, we could provide a home to refugees from Syria, Libya and Pakistan. We must ensure that the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights actually come into its own.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. I appeal to speakers to abide by the speaking time limit, which is three minutes. I give the floor to Ms Fiala.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their warm, heartfelt and brave report. If I am a bit more dispassionate and try to build bridges, it is not in any way a criticism of the rapporteurs.

      Anyone who has seen the tragedy of the refugees at first hand, as I have, in the borders of Syria, and in the accommodation for unaccompanied children, young people and women, and anyone who has seen the way in which refugees are held in the holding centres on the Greek islands, will lose their innocence and know that any answers to this misery are not simply black and white. Look at the situation and at the anger that was triggered by the appearance of the Turkish Prime Minister. Quite rightly, there must be respect for our shared values, but sometimes there are shortcomings and we can complain about that. I agree that we should not support double standards. Nonetheless, that should not lead us to exclude Turkey or to fail to see what it has done for the refugees.

      At present, Turkey has 2.7 million refugees. Whatever we might feel about Turkey, the situation has been a huge challenge for the country. Not all those who criticise Turkey can say that anything like similar circumstances have applied in their own countries and they cannot say that their country has been doing anything like Turkey. We must be dispassionate about the situation and make a clear distinction about what we think about the human rights situation – for example, the lack of freedom of expression in Turkey – and the concern that backward steps are being taken towards a more authoritarian system, and the efforts that Turkey has made to deal with the refugees, at least 10% of whom are living in camps.

      At the moment, the European Union does not have a plan B. That is the real problem. We are living in a Europe without any consensus about what to do about the refugees. There is no burden sharing that is worthy of that name. People are creating an atmosphere of fear among our population. I call on members to criticise Turkey for what is going on there, but to admit and admire what it has done for refugees. You cannot say that you are an arsonist and, at the same time, call for the fire brigade to come along. I thank all those who, in their countries, are saying that contributions must be made to solve the refugee problem and I invite members to support the report.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – I thank both rapporteurs. I can see how much has been sacrificed in the work on the reports.

      In my country, the policy on migration is very clear. We have had open-door policies for the past

6 years, and there are 2 749 000 Syrians in Turkey at the moment. Four and a half years ago, there were only 150 000 and they were Syrians who were born in Turkey. Of course, the number of migrants is growing because Syrians are being born in Turkey all the time and 770 000 are being educated there. In Kilis, I travelled to two immigrant camps, including Öncüpınar. The physical conditions in those camps are not bad at all. The children have teachers, and there are even special teachers for handicapped children. I could give more details about what Turkey is doing.

      As you all know, we are combating illegal immigration, and we signed an agreement with the European Union that we would do everything possible to prevent the illegal migration, including migrations across the Aegean Sea. The agreement was very much criticised, but so many immigrant children have drowned in the Aegean Sea and, since the agreement was signed, fewer children have drowned and fewer migrants are leaving Turkey for Greece. Before, 6 800 people were moving from Turkey to Greece each day, and now the figure is almost down to zero. Of course, for a permanent solution, we need to deal with the conditions causing immigrants to leave their countries and causing the flow of people. We must find ways in which these people can remain in peace in their own country. Since the crisis started, we asked whether we could have a safety zone within the territory of Syria. Our goal is to retain Syria’s territorial integrity and to preserve Syria in the face of those conditions.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work. I will focus specifically on the European Union-Turkey agreement because it marks a change in European Union policy from reception to refoulement of refugees.

      It has been said that the main purpose of the agreement is to fight trafficking, but we know that trafficking can be fought only by providing safe access and safe roads for refugees. The main purpose of the agreement is to cut the flow of immigrants and refugees. The agreement refers to irregular immigrants, but UNHCR says that 90% of the people coming across are refugees, with 45% coming from Syria, 28% from Afghanistan and 18% from Iraq. Some 65% are children and women. The people to whom we in Europe are denying access and sending back to Turkey are not irregular immigrants, but refugees. Europe has decided on the refoulement of refugees. This is the first time that this has become legal since the Second World War. We have to recognise that and we have to change it.

      The agreement explicitly states that for every Syrian who is sent back from Greece to Turkey, another will go to Europe. The agreement implies that Turkey is a safe country for asylum seekers. That is not accurate. Turkey has not ratified the New York protocol and it does not provide asylum for anybody other than Europeans. Syrians are given temporary asylum, but this is not complete asylum in accordance with European Union legal standards. We do not know what will happen to the other refugees. What will happen to Afghans, Iraqis and Eritreans?

      There have been reports of the refoulement of refugees back to Syria, and of Afghans sent back to Kabul. On 1 April, The Guardian published an article saying that 14 Syrians, including four children had been killed trying to cross the border. I do not want to demonise Turkey, because it has received 3 million people; I want us – Europe – to take responsibility. The agreement is against international law, the Geneva Convention and the European Union acquis. We really have to challenge it. Europe should take responsibility and not try to push it to outside its border. We need broad resettlement from Turkey of more than 500 000 people. The relocation system should be applied in accordance with the solidarity principle and with our responsibilities. Europe should keep the human rights standards and handle the situation wisely, realistically and according to international conventions and law.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the European People’s Party) – The Group of the European People’s Party is very serious about refugees and we took the reports very seriously. Unfortunately, we have to say that there are a lot of problems and misunderstandings in all three. We have to be very careful when considering whether to approve them, as this says that everything is okay and we have nothing to add.

      I will concentrate on the report “Human rights of refugees and migrants – the situation in the Western Balkans”. I have a serious question: why have we put the words “refugees and migrants” together as if they are one entity? Look on Wikipedia: refugees and migrants are very different things. What is applicable to refugees – the Geneva Convention and so on – is not applicable to economic migrants and migrants looking for happiness. We have to separate these things out. The report suggests that we should apply the same rules for migrants and refugees. That cannot be approved.

      The EPP does not understand the geography of the report. The name of the report uses the phrase “Western Balkans”. Suddenly we see that Austria and Slovenia are the Western Balkans! I do not know if Austrians and Slovenians agree that they are Balkan countries. If they agree, okay, but I would imagine that they do not agree. Where is Bulgaria? Where is Albania? We have to understand the geography.

      Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.7 suggest that our officials and border guards should not fulfil their jobs. Why do we have border guards, if not to check whether people have permission to enter? I am sorry to say it, but it is not right to force border guards not to perform their duties. My country is a member of NATO. It is also a Schengen area country. I cannot agree to sacrifice our NATO security obligations just because Ms Strik says we have to welcome everybody.

      We recommend the rejection of at least this report. If it is not rejected, I strongly suggest supporting all the amendments that we have tabled.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – I would first like to thank the rapporteurs for touching on this very sensitive and very important topic, and for their excellent work. The problem of Syrian refugees has also touched my country. Armenia has hosted the third-highest number of refugees per capita in Europe, after Germany and Sweden. Today, we are facing many problems, but our government is taking all necessary steps to provide the people who have sheltered in Armenian with the conditions for normal life. We have adopted several legislative regulations to give these people business privileges for full integration. Any support given to our government by the European Union would be welcome and is much needed.

      Many of the refugees are ethnic Armenians. They are the descendants of the families who were displaced from Turkey over 100 years ago and found shelter in neighbouring Syria. Most of them still remember. Others have heard, repeatedly, the stories about the execution of families and the massacres of Armenians in Turkey during the Armenian genocide in 1915. We are grateful to the people of the region who, a century ago, sheltered hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Armenian genocide. However, since the breakout of the conflict in 2011 and the rise of ISIS, many of them have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. Armenian settlements, churches, schools and cultural institutions have been destroyed. Tens of thousands of Armenians, together with other peoples of the Middle East, have been forced to abandon their homes again.

      Although a huge amount of work is being done to provide the refugees with good life conditions in their new places of residence, it is the main cause that must be exterminated: the terrorist group ISIS. This brutal war is a danger for the whole world, as was vividly shown by the attacks in Paris and Brussels, and by the monstrous actions in the recent unprecedented escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. There have been beheadings, ears cut off, and the torture of Armenian soldiers and civilians. Children, women and elderly people have been killed. ISIL-style actions have come to our region. So we should certainly fight to stop escalation to other regions. In parallel with the care of refugees, we should also stop the possibility of having more.

      Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – It is with great concern that I am once again taking the Floor to address the Assembly on this unprecedented migration and refugee crisis, which is causing so much human pain and suffering.

      Our strongest European response will be one that is based on peace, solidarity, humanitarian assistance and equitable burden sharing. Diplomacy is also necessary, and we must pursue the efforts already under way with all the main stakeholders in the conflict to reach a political solution that will bring security and stability to Syria and the wider region. At the same time, terrorism and the radicalisation of the younger generation that has created so many foreign fighters in Syria must be combated without prejudice to human rights and the other core values of this Organisation. I do believe, however, that our common European response must be based on peace rather than war, and driven by our shared conviction that the overwhelming majority of people caught in the Syrian conflict deserve our unwavering support and humanitarian assistance.

      Europe should redesign its reception and integration policies. We should strive to integrate migrant and refugee populations and treat them as dignified human beings seeking a better life, and not as second- class citizens. If we fail to do so, how can we expect to incorporate this huge new influx of people on the basis of the so-called relocation mechanism? We must therefore seriously and holistically redesign our integration policies if we want to continue to believe in our open and pluralistic societies. Of course, this entails a substantial financial commitment. Europe as a whole, but also individual countries in a better economic situation, should assume this cost.

      In parallel, Europe’s development policy should change. Countries neighbouring Syria, such as Lebanon and Jordan, which are hosting large numbers of refugees, should be bolstered so that they too can address the immediate health care, education and subsistence needs of refugees. Similarly, viable economic projects in that country could contribute to the sustainable development of Europe’s periphery.

      It is certainly commendable that Turkey has already hosted approximately 2 million refugees. However, I am not convinced that the recent European Union-Turkey deal is compatible with human rights and international law. Durable long-term solutions meeting European human rights standards must be sought both for refugees and for Europe itself. Building walls and creating a fortress Europe is not an option, even if the terrorist threat continues to spread on a global scale.

      I congratulate our colleagues on their excellent report.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey)* – I, too, would like to thank Ms Groth. The report very sagaciously underscores the need to strengthen international solidarity in review of the flow of refugees. Since the beginning of the crisis, international solidarity has unfortunately not increased. As the report mentions, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are trying to receive as many refugees as possible with very limited resources.

      We have been applying a policy of open doors for the past five years to refugees that are fleeing their country. We apply very strictly the principle of non-refoulement to Syrian refugees. There is no change on that. In following this policy, Turkey today is a country that has received the largest number of refugees received anywhere – 2.7 million Syrians, who are in Turkey at this moment. The Syrians who are in our country, and who have been living in our country since the beginning of the crisis, benefit from a transitional protection status. They can benefit from health and educational services that are completely free. Under a law accepted last February, Syrians are also allowed legally to work in Turkey. Some of the Syrians even started to create small companies.

      In the framework of the common action plan on migrants, both sides have undertaken commitments and responsibilities for burden sharing. These commitments between Turkey and the European Union are not subject to preconditions. The material support that the European Union has to send to improve the situation of the Syrians cannot be linked with the way in which they act, or with the issue of people clandestinely taking to the sea. There should be a link-up of responsibility in the crisis. This is not a regional matter, but a global question, and it is necessary to find a global answer.

      I admire our Armenian friends. We are talking about a humanitarian crisis, and they have managed to link it with historic issues between Turkey and Armenia. Frankly I congratulate them on their acrobaticism.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Today we are discussing reports on a huge human catastrophe. Of course this is a difficult topic to handle, but how the principles of political realism apply to what should be done is outlined in the first report on Syria.

      Those fleeing the conflict in Syria need international protection. If possible, protection is best provided by countries close to home, and of course those countries need external support. If we reflect on the numbers of refugees in countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, we realise that they are beyond imagination. Of course, Turkey is bigger, and the absolute numbers in Turkey are also much bigger, but all those countries are under very strong pressure. This matter cannot be the responsibility only of neighbouring countries or only of Europe; it is the responsibility of the international community as a whole. This situation has arisen not only because of Bashar al-Assad. It has also come about because of a lack of decisiveness by the international community, especially in the very beginning. Of course, the Russian role in the conflict was counterproductive and meant an even bigger number of victims.

      On the second report, on the western Balkans, Mr Vareikis has said a lot already. There is some confusion about geography here, as well as about terminology. We must separate refugees who are coming from Syria after what happened there from those who are migrants. The recommendation contains a strong sentence about Hungary’s asylum procedure. Yes, that is probably right, but we must understand such countries much more, as they are under huge pressure and need our help.

      I do not think we are in a situation where we have a choice between good and bad. We have a choice between very bad and very bad. It is not easy, therefore, to give advice to the countries that are under pressure; they really need lots of help.

      Baroness MASSEY (United Kingdom) – I thank and congratulate the rapporteurs for providing clear and challenging reports. They provide stark evidence that Europe has not yet found a sustainable response to the refugee and migrant situation. In particular, there is shocking evidence of the denial of human rights, which are being thwarted by the emphasis on border control.

      I want to focus my remarks today on the denial of children’s rights. In the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, I am a member of the European Union Home Affairs Sub-Committee. We have conducted an inquiry into the European Union action plan against migrant smuggling and are currently engaged in another inquiry into unaccompanied minors in the European Union. I wish to relate some of the evidence already emerging from that inquiry and draw more widely on evidence from voluntary sector organisations and press reports.

      The Guardian reported on 9 March this year that women and children face far greater dangers than men. Some women and children have been robbed by gangs or fellow refugees. Others have been harassed or extorted by smugglers and border guards or forced by criminals to work for them. Reports from Amnesty International and the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children describe cases of women and child refugees being subject to violence and sexual abuse. They are constantly at risk. They have to use the same toilets and showers as men and sleep in the same tents. Border controls are chaotic. Some children become separated from their parents, and once unaccompanied they face a greater danger of being victims of human trafficking and sexual abuse.

      Hundreds of families or unaccompanied children are detained. Some children simply go missing. Estimates we have of the number of those children are undoubtedly too low. We do not know who these children are or where they go. It is a pan-European problem. Organisations such as UNICEF and Save the Children have condemned border restrictions and the conditions under which migrants are living. Children have rights but are unlikely to be able to exercise them. Children are in need of protection. I am pleased to support the calls to action expressed in the reports today.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – How great is the sorrow of the refugees in Syria or the western Balkans? How do they feel? The number of people who know the exact replies to those questions owing to their bitter experience and misfortune is not in the hundreds of thousands but in the millions. Every day, we have been witnessing the most crushing scenes in the horrible human tragedy in the South Caucasus. The heartbreaking disaster faced by Syrian refugees and migrants today recall thousands of similarly sorrowful scenes previously witnessed in other regions of our continent.

      One must admit that today’s developments relate directly to the events of yesterday. Today we are thinking about the responsibility of Europe for the calamity faced by Syrian refugees who have nothing to do with Europe geographically. Anxiety is a very logical response, because if we are not concerned and do not try to take related measures, we should be ready to experience similar disasters in the near future. I came to that conclusion not now but 28 years ago.

      It was the winter of 1988. The deportation of Azerbaijanis from lands historically inhabited by their ancestors for centuries had started. A huge army composed of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees were trying to cross mountains in frosty and snowy conditions, in order to survive. More than

300 000 human beings had suddenly lost their accommodation, wealth, garments and had to begin their lives from zero. At that time, a foreign reporter recorded an interview with one of the refugees, who wept as he talked not about his personal sorrows but the sorrows of others. He said that people had started to run away bare-headed and barefoot when armed Armenians attacked their village. He was in such a hurry that he forgot to undo the dog’s chain in the yard and set it free. The state of the dog, left helpless, hungry and thirsty in that ruined place, upset him much more than his own situation.

      I heard that story for the first time 28 years ago. I will never forget it, and it will always burn my heart. That is an example of our supreme human responsibility for animals and living creatures. Had we approached with the same sensibility, sincerity and accountability the problems, sufferings and tragedies of refugees in Syria, the western Balkans and the South Caucasus, regardless of their nationality, things would have been different, and we would not be discussing the current reports but other, brighter ones.

      Ms TOLHURST (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteurs for their hard work. We all recognise the scale of the heartbreaking humanitarian and refugee crisis in Syria. I warmly welcome the role that European Union member States have collectively played in helping genuine refugees in the camps across Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. We have so far led the way in raising more than €5 billion since the conflict began. That has gone some way towards helping some of the millions of internally displaced Syrians and the 4.7 million immediate refugees. It continues to help those who are in desperate need and those who have selflessly pledged to assist them. That includes Lebanon, whose population is now around 25% refugees from Syria.

      These refugees are people who want to return home, restart their lives and move forward, creating real futures for their families. I am proud of the efforts made by the European Union and the United Kingdom in particular in assisting the achievement of those goals. That said, I remain very concerned about the number of Syrians who continue to choose to take the perilous journey across the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. I fully appreciate that Syria’s neighbours cannot sustain the numbers of refugees.

      It is right that European countries do what they can to alleviate pressures. I support the offer of asylum to those who are most in need – the children, the vulnerable, the wounded and the persecuted. I am proud that the United Kingdom has committed to taking 20 000 of the most vulnerable people directly from the camps across the Syrian border by 2020. However, the 1 million people who have already crossed into Europe are causing some unsustainable issues; we must accept that. In the United Kingdom, we have seen problems caused at the Channel Tunnel in my region of Kent. The police continue to intercept lorries smuggling migrants across the border, including nearly 1 000 unaccompanied minors so far. At the borders of Europe, the European Union needs a stronger but also a warmer humanitarian response.

      I am pleased that steps have been taken to secure a deal with Turkey, which involves migrants being returned in place of genuine refugees and a pledge to cut the dangerous migrant routes. That alone will not stop the persistent challenges, but we must be realistic about what we can achieve in Europe now and in the future.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteurs for the wonderful reports that have been submitted. I find it hard to imagine that the EPP would reject any of them because we want a composite stance on refugees. We heard a representative from the Jobbik Party in Hungary, but that has nothing to do with human rights. In this Assembly, we must come up with a clear response to the situation of refugees in Europe.

      What are we talking about? We are talking about people – human beings – fleeing the most appalling things. I recently attended a forum in which we were shown images of what is happening and what is being done to help people who have suffered injuries from war. It is unimaginable to think that we cannot help those people. We are talking about humanitarian values, Muslim values and Christian values. Let us not forget that the Pope underlined those values not that long ago. Members of the European Union and Council of Europe need to apply them.

      We must take on our responsibility, but not only because so many people are coming to Europe. In the European Union, there are 2 million refugees among a 500 million population. That is not that many and surely we can distribute them. It is an important challenge and we must meet it. We need to apply the values enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. They apply to us all and we must adhere to them. We cannot choose to ignore them. We can have different views, but the aim is to provide help and succour to people who are fleeing war and strife.

      People can find refuge as close as possible to where they come from – that is where humanitarian aid can best be provided. The European Union and Turkey have an agreement, and other agreements could be signed with North African States. Regardless of our own feelings about the agreement, there are three important points. First, we should provide help to all States that are most directly affected by the refugee situation. Secondly, regardless of what we do, we should carry out individual checks to establish whether people are refugees – we cannot have a catch-all solution. Thirdly, we need to look at what is happening in countries such as Turkey because we want refugees to be safe.

      I call on everyone to move away from the national perspective, and to look at the issue from the point of view of human rights. We should not be critical of what is happening in Turkey, and I ask delegates not to approve the amendments to the text. We need a clear position.

      Mr GYÖNGYÖSI (Hungary) – I thank the rapporteurs for attempting to describe the very difficult situation in Syria and the consequences of the migration crisis. I will not reiterate the heavy consequences of the migration crisis – the death toll, the number of people injured and the number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). We must pay attention to the enormous social consequences of the war in Syria and migration. We are facing an enormous humanitarian crisis now, but when we take into account the number of children who have missed school and who are mentally and spiritually traumatised by the conflict, we realise that the trauma will last for generations into the future.

      There are many good proposals and recommendations in the report, but the rapporteurs also draw our attention to the fact that promises and the agreed proposals are rarely put into practice. There is also a lack of co-ordination between the European Union and international organisations, as well as among European Union member States. We welcome the firefighting actions – the ceasefire concluded in February 2016 is a great step forward, and the December resolution of the United Nations Security Council is also good news as a first step. As a result of those steps, the atrocities have decreased significantly, but the situation is extremely fragile and war erupted again recently.

      Much has been said about the responsibilities of European countries. First, we have a great responsibility to clarify the terminology and differentiate migrants and refugees. All nations have a great responsibility to offer long-term solutions. It is irresponsible to give false hope to millions of economic migrants, and it is misleading to think that Europe can take on a number of refugees or migrants without it threatening its economic and social stability and its security. It has been said that one of the main tasks for European countries is to provide asylum to most of the migrants in neighbouring countries – the countries close to the those people’s roots – because the affected countries must be rebuilt by their own nationals, and they can be returned to their countries as soon as peace and stability returns to the region.

      My final point is that responsible action means considering the root causes of the problems. The majority of the refugees and migrants who have arrived in Europe have come from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, which our continent and certain member States of the Council of Europe have irresponsibly destabilised with completely unacceptable foreign and security policies. It is high time we revised our thinking about the region.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I thank both rapporteurs for the difficult job they have undertaken. It was not an easy task.

      It is indeed true that, since the Syrian civil war began, more than 320 000 people have been killed, including nearly 12 000 children. About 1.5 million people have been wounded or permanently disabled, according to the Syrian observatory for human rights. It is worth underlining that the war has become more deadly since foreign powers joined the conflict.

      Within Syria, healthcare and education systems and other infrastructure have been destroyed. The economy is shattered. Syrian children have lost loved ones, suffered injuries, missed years of schooling, and witnessed unspeakable violence and brutality. We heard from the Turkish Prime Minister yesterday, and the Assembly is aware of the steps taken by the Turkish authorities in preventing refugees from entering Turkey and from entering Greece. Apart from the ongoing war in Syria and unrest in countries such as Libya, Iraq and Eritrea we have observed that crime conducted by human traffickers of refugees and migrants has had a great impact on the inflow of non-Europeans into Europe. The undesirable acts of the criminals involved in human trafficking should be condemned, and Turkey should take a strong stand on the barbaric treatment of people who are both suffering and yet mistreated and lost in the Mediterranean. With the agreement reached between the European Union and Turkey, there should be no excuse for the wrongdoings of the criminals involved.

      Turkey harbours more than 2.5 million Syrians, which is more than any other country, and gives them the status of nominally protected people. However, the Assembly should ensure that the answers to the following questions are correct. Does Turkey grant refugees all the rights that they are due under the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention? Has not it illegally forced some Syrians to return to their homeland? Is the European Commission monitoring what is happening to people who are returned to Turkey?

      I stress that European and international legal standards on refugee and migrant rights should be respected.

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

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I congratulate both rapporteurs on their excellent contributions to the discussion on migration and asylum. The challenges ahead are enormous and I am well aware of the strain that that puts on our societies. However, at the end of the day, we are talking about human suffering. In other circumstances, it could be you, me or any one of us here in need of help.

      Having heard numerous testimonies on the situation in various countries, such as Greece, I want to talk about migrant children. At a hearing yesterday, I learned that many unaccompanied children refrain from revealing their real ages on arrival in Europe because they fear being separated from their group. Due to long childcare proceedings, some children must wait alone for up to a year for a resolution of their case. Too many children are kept in detention centres. Detention is no place for children.

      According to the European Union’s criminal intelligence agency, at least 10 000 unaccompanied child refugees have disappeared in the past two years after arriving in Europe. It is feared that many of them have fallen into the hands of criminal groups.

      The Council of Europe has a long record of protecting children’s rights. This disappearance of thousands of children in connection with the current refugee crisis has brought to our attention new challenges, which should be addressed in a more focused way. For example, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings has identified several shortcomings in the protection of child victims of trafficking.

      I thank the rapporteurs for their focus on the importance of family reunification. Everyone has the right to support from their near ones in a new country and a new culture. That right is especially important to unaccompanied migrant children. The Assembly should investigate how the rights and well-being of migrant children could be better safeguarded. It should also look into the responsibilities of the actors and authorities involved, and measures to protect migrant children from becoming victims of trafficking.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The migration crisis, with countless refugees from the Middle East driven into Europe by the ferocity of the Syrian war, has put European capitals in a complicated situation, and distracted them from other important issues. This seemingly externally created crisis has produced a series of even deeper internal crises. Candid discussion on the European Union’s internal and external borders, the liabilities and procedures for accommodating refugees and decisions on their future, and the stance that the European Union should take as a response of the crisis can either strengthen unity through shared values or promote isolation.

      All of this has contributed to the rise of radical, nationalistic groups and parties which have already converted their new influence into political dividends.

      Meanwhile, Russian airstrikes in northern Syria are leading to a flow of refugees headed towards Europe. In March, NATO’s General Philip Breedlove frankly linked the Syria bombings and the region’s ground warfare with the increasing intensity of migrant flows to the European Union and Turkey.

      Russia has also actively supported xenophobia in Europe, engaging its mass media and heavily funded radical parties and groups, most of which were established with the sole purpose of promoting the crisis. The subject of the anti-European groups created by the Kremlin inside the European Union continues to rise on the agendas of European capitals that are searching for the best decisions about the refugee problem. They are always having to glance back at the hard attacks of Moscow-financed groups, and that hurts unity on the refugee crisis.

      The official report of the Czech security and information service stated: “Russia is creating an ideological structure that may be embraced across a broad European political spectrum, from the far left to the far right – forces which can be considered a return of the Comintern concept that was engineered and directed by the Soviet Union.”

      Even accusations of Moscow-sourced funding cannot seem to end the political careers of those responsible. Moreover, they provide additional promotional coverage. That all corresponds to the Russian general hybrid approach of exploiting the internal mechanisms of the West for its destruction. Using the refugee crisis is key to those Moscow plans.

      Colleagues, please find out more about it and you will be surprised. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. These facts are in front of your eyes.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I thank Tineke Strik and Annette Groth for their sound and accurate reports. The situation in the western Balkans and respect for the rights of refugees there should ring alarm bells. Almost three weeks ago, I went to the reception centre in Tabanovce in Macedonia, just a few hundred metres from the border with Serbia that is now closed. More than 1 000 refugees were there, most of them women and children. They were gathered together in chaos, and deprived of the most basic necessities. I was able to talk to those running the centre and to UNHCR, non-governmental organisations and several Afghan and Iraqi refugees. There was not enough food and hygiene was a cause for concern.

      When I got back to Skopje, I sent an urgent message to my government, describing the predicament of the 60 000 people who are now trapped between Greece and Slovenia. They have been trapped there since the agreement between the European Union and Turkey. Those people were already in Greece when the agreement was announced and at least some had already set off northwards. The closure of the borders has therefore left them in great distress. I am afraid, in the light of what I saw and heard there, that they may end up using force or violence or resorting to desperate acts if any attempts are made to take them back to Greece or Turkey.

      The flow of refugees to Greece dried up at the beginning of April. I believe that it would therefore be fair to allow those persons to whom I referred, if they so wish, to continue their journey northwards, particularly if they are going to be reunited with their families. Of course, that should be done within a framework of a binding European mechanism for the distribution of refugees.

      Europe cannot close its eyes to what is happening to refugees in the western Balkans. No transit State wants to force refugees to stay where they are and seek asylum there. Indeed, they do not have the means, or frequently the political will, to do that. We are witnessing a European tragedy and circumstances more than States are imposing decisions on us. Do we even know whether sending all Syrians back to Turkey, for which the European Union-Ankara Agreement provides, is legal under the right to asylum? No. Do we have any assurance that Greece, without a stable Government or stable funding, can hold firm? Again, no. Have we at least thought about what we will do in future if, as is likely, new ways of accessing Europe emerge through Albania or Libya, leaving Italy very exposed? Again, no.

      The political choices that are being made are ineffective, show a lack of vision and leave a bitter taste in our mouths. As parliamentarians in the Council of Europe, we must ensure that laws and rights are put back at the heart of our response to the tragedy that is playing out before us. We must display the same generosity as Pope Francis in his inspirational and hope-filled gesture of returning home with three refugee families.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – I am going to support all three reports, whether or not the amendments are accepted. The reports should be passed by this Assembly because this is the first time there has been a real, concrete effort to try to solve this issue. I support this. However, I am against the general sentiment in this Chamber that this refugee issue has come out of the blue without any root causes or concrete basis.

      I warned this Assembly in 2013 – three years ago – that it seemed highly likely that the whole of Syria would soon fall into ruins, leading to a humanitarian disaster on the outskirts of Europe should events continue at their present pace, and it happened. I wish it had not happened but it did. It was the price paid by the Syrian people for a miscalculated US proxy war to realign forces in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the West followed in the footsteps of the United States and the Council of Europe was not exempt from this. In April 2012 Resolution 1878 stated that this Assembly believed that Assad’s regime was coming to an end, but it did not. Now we have millions of refugees, some of them fleeing the Assad regime, some fleeing IS.

      IS was also a product of this miscalculated intervention into Syria’s internal affairs. Western military support was channelled to the Free Syrian Army, which was expected to topple the Assam regime but it turned into al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda turned into IS. Ultimately, the monster you created to topple Assad has now become another monster that you are trying to topple.

      This refugee issue has now become a major moral problem for both Turkey and Europe. Remember the minutes of the talks between Juncker and Erdoğan: this refugee issue is being used as a Turkish domestic policy issue against our party. I hope that all these schemes work but I do not think that this refugee issue will end while it is used by governments as a tool against each other.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – I wholeheartedly endorse the conclusions of Ms Strik, who said that no solution to the current refugee crisis can be sustainably successful if it is not predicated on true solidarity and recognition of the need to undertake a common endeavour of fair burden-sharing with respect to migrants and the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and without emergency measures to manage the migrant strategy in Europe and the region. The Parliamentary Assembly must work with the countries of the region and the European Union must respect its principles by putting forward precise political recommendations.

      In responding to the humanitarian emergency, it is high time for Europe and the international community to recognise that at root this is a political crisis. Unresolved regional crises and political instability are the generators of this migration. It is also the result of the leniency of the international community and its lack of will to shoulder its responsibility and tackle the political crises. Europe and the international community must now shoulder their responsibilities to help these countries carry out a peaceful political transition, which is necessary for economic and social development. This is the true path to ensuring that we can stem these tragic migratory flows.

      In conclusion, I pay tribute to the sacrifice of the host countries. We need to come to the assistance of these countries rather than point the finger at them. I thank the rapporteurs for the quality of their work.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports. The European Union is facing a very serious crisis. As I am sure you are aware, the European Union has been discussing what measures should be taken and we need to see just how much influence the Council of Europe can exert on the European Union.

      The crisis is a result of what occurred in Iraq. Of course, the United States and a number of European States were involved in this, including the United Kingdom. The situation is very unstable at the moment. It is not necessarily appropriate that the reports criticise Turkey and say it is not doing enough for refugees and is failing to comply with United Nations standards. If we compare Turkey with other European States, we can conclude only that Turkey is doing far more than most States in the European Union. It is a failure of the European Union if we simply accept that some people are doing less than others with regard to the refugees. Of course, Germany and Sweden are taking on a very significant share of the burden; as is Switzerland, even though it is not a member of the European Union, but compared with other European countries it is taking on far more refugees.

      We are talking about an institutional crisis here. The European Union has failed to develop a coherent refugee policy or external policy response, leading to this calamitous situation. I certainly hope that the European Union can take what action is required so that the agreement can be put through and the European Convention on Human Rights can be fully respected and adhered to.

      This problem has not been solved by closing the routes in the Balkans. We should expect refugees to continue to try other routes through Libya and North Africa. In the years to come, unfortunately, I am sure we still be talking about a crisis of refugees coming in great droves to Italy from Syria. If Austria is erecting border fences, this seems wrong, of course. We are pointing accusing fingers at Serbia and other Balkan countries. We are letting other people do the dirty work and we are closing the borders. This is not an honourable policy at all.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – Once again there is a great contrast between the suffering on our TV screens and the political responses that we can provide. We hear the cries of pain, but people turn to demagogues and try to deny the reality of what is happening. People want to be left in peace and ignore the crowds clamouring at their borders. However, we should not as Europeans be trying to resolve the situation by building walls or horse trading with Turkey; we will not gain from that in the longer term.

      We need to welcome refugees into our countries and be sure of the values we are offering them. We also need to look at where they are coming from so that when appropriate they are able to return to lasting peace. We must clarify some of our alliances in that regard and of course we must eliminate Daesh both militarily and culturally. Many people have lost their lives and homes in the conflict. I emphasise the role played by Russia, which took action to prevent the escalation of violence. That is yet another reason why the Russian delegation needs to return to this Assembly.

      I want to flag my concern about the suspension of the negotiations in Geneva. That is very worrying: if we cannot continue with negotiations, fighting will break out again and civilians will again be victims. Let us not put our faith into the illusion of walls. Let us believe in our principles and values and say that we in the Council of Europe can be strong. I congratulate both rapporteurs on their excellent work.

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The Syrian tragedy is the root of massive migration on a scale not seen since the last World War. A dreadful war, with hundreds of thousands of dead, has driven half of the Syrian people out of their country or to other parts of it. The report objectively describes the dramatic situation and the hellish ordeal of the Syrian people as well as of others such as Palestinians who sought refuge in Syria.

      I want to refer to a number of key issues. Syrian people are being forced on the move by war and deprivation. These migrants undoubtedly deserve assistance and protection from the international community. Initially, they tried to settle near their country and we should stress the major effort made by Lebanon and Jordan, which are now completely overwhelmed, as well as Turkey. As the war carries on, the migrants’ situation is becoming ever more precarious; the exodus has continued to Europe, which is their only way out. Given their extreme distress, many have not hesitated to take huge risks. The route of death in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas is profitable for unscrupulous smugglers.

      Borders in Europe have recently closed, but nothing has been resolved. People, including children, face inhuman conditions at the gates of Europe. It is high time that we took concrete measures. European countries must substantially increase material assistance in the region – for Jordan and Lebanon in particular, but also for Greece and Turkey. As Europeans we must, in the light of the resources and opportunities of each country, take in more refugees in unity and in a co-ordinated manner. The movement to Europe of all these people must be carried out safely to prevent new tragedies.

      Finally, we should foster family reunion; Pope Francis has shown the way. I call on members to support the proposed resolutions but we should not stop there. Our voices count in our respective countries and we must convey a message of solidarity and sharing in our parliaments and countries, in the spirit and letter of the European Convention on Human Rights. This major challenge is not straightforward, but it is essential to allow for the best possible acceptance of these measures. We should not forget those in our own countries who are suffering from deprivation and exclusion. I call for greater social justice.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey)* – I thank the rapporteurs for tackling this important subject. We are discussing a humanitarian issue, so there is no reason for one country to blame another. Of course we have the right to criticise other countries, but when I go out on the streets in Turkish cities, hospitals and schools, I see hundreds of Syrians. We are not bothered by that; they live among us and our children go to the same schools. However, Turkey has really assumed great responsibility, which should also be shared by others. We can discuss and criticise the agreement between Turkey and the European Union, but are we doing enough to make sure that our countries admit more refugees? Are we forcing our governments to open our doors? It is nice to criticise from comfortable chairs – it is easy to criticise other countries when you are here – but Turkey and other countries such as Jordan have spent a lot of money and borne serious humanitarian costs. Until the agreement was signed, more than 500 people had died, mostly women and children; no one has died since the agreement was signed. One target was to stop deaths and we have succeeded.

      Turkey worked very hard for a peaceful transition in Syria, but no one heard our voice. Turkey has been admitting refugees since 2010; we never closed our doors. We call on Council of Europe countries to open their doors to refugees and give them a chance. We can blame each other, but although we can criticise Turkey and other countries, members should be asking themselves whether they are doing enough as members of parliament to make their countries admit more refugees. We need to ask ourselves that ethical question, which is also a legal obligation.

      Ms DE SUTTER (Belgium) – Whatever agreement is negotiated among world leaders – between the European Union and Turkey or elsewhere – and whatever route or country border is being closed, whether in Greece, Macedonia or Hungary, it must be clear that refugee migration does not recognise borders. The migrants arriving in record numbers in Greece wanting to make their way to western Europe through the western Balkans route were not stopped by the defences built by Hungary. Many refugees shifted to Croatia; 764 000 such illegal border crossings were detected in 2015, according to Frontex. That means that since the closure of one border, there were 16 times as many illegal border crossings in 2015 as in 2014. Besides, the complete closure of the Macedonian border and thus the Western Balkan route has resulted in large groups of refugees being trapped in Greece in horrifying conditions. They cannot stay there in those conditions. As Amnesty International’s latest report shows, more than 46 000 refugees and migrants are in appalling conditions and a state of constant fear and uncertainty. Those trapped in Greece have very little prospect of accessing international protection and are in danger of being forgotten.

      Migration of refugees has become a synonym for closing routes and borders, and for sending people back to Turkey – outside of the European Union – in return for the relocation of 40 000 Syrian refugees, and for papers being more important than people. I ask you: do papers matter more than people? Is that the Europe we want to live in? Is that what we stand for? In almost every news item I read, I see violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits any kind of inhuman and degrading treatment. That means that you cannot send people back to countries where they could be exposed to such treatment. The European Union is setting human rights aside in its deal with Turkey.

      I fully support Ms Strik’s and Ms Groth’s reports and stress the need for humanitarian pathways to avoid the need for refugees and migrants to take dangerous, irregular routes to seek protection in Europe. People trapped in camps in Greece, and especially pregnant women and women with babies, should receive legal aid, access to services and support and information about their fate. Cases of family reunification should be given absolute priority and responsibility should be shared. We should not be closing routes and borders but showing refugees dignity and solidarity. The migration of refugees should not be a synonym for closing routes and borders, for sending people back and relocating them or for trading off people like they are just numbers. Migration of refugees should be a synonym for international protection, safe humanitarian pathways and respect for people rather than for their papers.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – A couple of weeks ago, a kind of brainstorming started in Europe on how to solve the migration crisis. There was a proposal from Italy at that time, and recently Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister, announced a 10-point package. The debate consists of two parts, and I congratulate both rapporteurs on their efforts. First, we have Ms Groth’s report. I do not think that we have too much to debate about the conclusion of her report: that the solution must be found in the region and that we will probably need an agreement similar to the Turkish one with Lebanon and Jordan. Those principles are clear.

      There is more to debate concerning both of Ms Strik’s reports about the European Union-Turkey agreement. She said that we support either her report or the European Union-Turkey agreement, and I agree. The question is: do we support Ms Strik or the European Union-Turkey agreement? That is what we will vote on and the EPP’s position is that we support the European Union-Turkey agreement, not Ms Strik, because we believe that it is a step forward in slowly closing the migration flow and finding a solution. I agree that that is the real challenge that faces the Council of Europe. Shall we take a position against the European Union – is that our strategy? Shall we have direct conflict with our Turkish friends? Dear colleagues, do you listen to their position? Our Turkish friends here are protecting the European Union-Turkey agreement but we are attacking it. Is it correct that they are protecting it and we are opposing it?

      The situation is serious. If the Council of Europe wants to remain a closed Organisation that has nothing to do with realpolitik and the realities of the European Union’s policies, we should support Ms Strik.

      Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey)* – Dear colleagues, the United Nations Refugee Agency has criticised the plans drawn up by Turkey and the European Union, saying that they would amount to a violation of human rights. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have published reports on the maltreatment of refugees in Turkey and Human right defenders are deeply concerned that Turkey fails to meet the requirements of being a safe third country. Turkey still does not recognise the refugee status of Syrians who had to flee their country.

      How could we deport refugees from Europe without guaranteeing that their rights will be protected? We all heard the Turkish Prime Minister declare yesterday that even if only one woman gets hurt in Turkey, she will be treated with great respect. Unfortunately, all of those who fight to end violence against women in Turkey claim the opposite. Today, Turkey fails to undertake sufficient measures required by the Istanbul convention to prevent violence against women. Refugee women are exposed to so much more violence and discrimination because of their vulnerable situation. From the age of 12, refugee women and children are forced into sex work, including temporary marriages in Turkey. Most of them agree to become second wives out of sheer desperation and, since most of those marriages are religious, they leave those women without any protection or rights in the event of a separation.

      For the European Union, work permits were one of the excuses for deporting asylum seekers back to Turkey. However, since work permits would require bosses to pay the minimum wage to workers, only a very small number of Syrian workers have had the blessing of their bosses making applications. Less than 0.1% of Syrians currently have the right to work in Turkey. Female refugees working in precarious jobs have no place to appeal when they face sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. They are afraid of going to the police since they are worried that could endanger their status in Turkey.

      Turkey’s refugee policy is unacceptable in other ways as well. Today, the Alevi community is concerned about the selection of places for refugee camps. The Turkish Government now plans to open new refugee camps near Alevi villages in areas such as Maraş. The Alevi community has been massacred many times by fascist and so-called Islamist groups, so they are afraid that the government could transfer not refugees but the supporters of Islamic State on purpose. That could threaten the Alevi community, with their heterodox beliefs.

      Finally, I call on parliamentarians in several countries who have struggled for a long time for women’s rights and made great achievements with the help of women’s solidarity. Rather than sealing our borders, we should come together for the rights of all refugees and especially women, who face increased risks of abuse. We should ensure that every country that has signed the Istanbul convention recognises gender-based violence as a form of persecution in determining refugee status, stop illegal collective deportations that endanger refugees’ rights and place greater control on the implementation of refugee law both in Europe and in Turkey.

      Ms KASIMATI (Greece)* – My country has had to cope with a massive burden of refugees in the past few months as a result of the war in Syria. The problems start with the Aegean sea. We have managed to rescue 150 000 people from the sea. We have made considerable efforts to save human lives – people who are in danger. Our local communities have all mobilised to do that, but our country cannot manage this on its own – no country could. The crisis that Greece is currently undergoing is one that we cannot overcome alone.

      There are refugees in Greece now who cannot go anywhere. They cannot go to the Balkan countries; they are stuck in Greece. We do not intend this serious situation to get worse with our neighbouring countries in the months and years to come. There are countries that could take in refugees, but do not want to take them in, and it is the same for migrants. We often hear the words “Macedonian borders” mentioned in this Chamber. At a meeting of Ministers an agreement was signed on FYROM (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), but there was a difference of opinion on what we should call that country and its neighbours. We do not agree with the use of the name “Macedonia” if it is used without taking account of the official name – citizens of FYROM or migrants from FYROM or refugees from FYROM. I want to flag this problem up. It is of paramount importance for us to be very careful about causing such problems because it can lead to a very negative position being adopted. That can remind us of problems we have had in the past, which have also been discussed in the Council of Europe. Let us not forget that a legitimate decision was taken. Given the current crisis, that is not the right path.

      Mr MESIĆ (Croatia) – The current migratory crisis is an unprecedented security and humanitarian challenge, which we need to address using a comprehensive approach and all available instruments, especially the Council of Europe and the European Union. We need strong support for a joint approach and action to tackle the challenge of migration. Humanitarian principles, the sharing of responsibility and solidarity with the most affected countries must be our priorities.

      Active engagement by all will be crucial in dealing with the crisis. Closure of the so-called Western Balkan route is an effort to end irregular migration from Turkey to the European Union, to break the business model of the smugglers and to offer migrants an alternative without risking their lives. It is a fact that some Council of Europe member States were confronted with an exceptionally high number of migrants and asylum seekers as destination or transit countries. Croatia was under strong migratory pressure before the closure of the so-called Balkan route.

      According to the principles of the Council of Europe, there is no doubt that we have an obligation to protect the rights of refugees under the European Convention on Human Rights. I make here a big distinction between refugees and economic migrants. It is also clear to all of us – elected as we are by our citizens – that we have obligations to protect the future and security of the citizens in our countries.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan)* – As colleagues will know, Armenia has forced many Azeri people away, and many have been displaced. That is why we know very well that being away from your home country and home town is very difficult. It is a pain that is hard to alleviate. I have talked with Syrians who live in Turkey and I thank the Turkish people for their massive support. I know that Turkey has become a home for those people. In fact, the population that Turkey is hosting equals the population of some European Union countries.

      Turkey now ranks No. 1 for the number of migrants hosted. The Council of Europe and all its members must support Turkey much more. It has been abandoned by everyone, physically and financially. The Council of Europe, the European Union and all European countries must increase their support for Turkey.

      I have also had talks with representatives of the Turkmens, who have asked me to tell the Council of Europe that they would like Europe to tackle the root causes of migration. Unless we fight the root causes, migration will only increase. Yesterday the President of the Commission was here and I mentioned all the persons who have been displaced – 1 million in total – who have had to leave their home towns because of Armenia’s occupation of Azeri lands. I expected the President of the Commission to say that we need to tackle the root causes and make sure that people go back to their countries. I was really saddened by the fact that I did not hear that.

      Unless we tackle the root causes, we will not be able to find a solution. Why are people fleeing their homes? Why are they throwing themselves into the waters of the Aegean and the Mediterranean? It is because they cannot see a future free from ethnic or religious discrimination. It is our duty as human beings to support those people, and we must also all support Turkey on this.

      Daesh has attacked a Turkmeni town in Syria with chemical weapons and many people lost their lives or were wounded. They also need our support. The Council of Europe must support those people, who are suffering.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS (Spain)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their work. Their reports warrant the support of the Assembly. I will refer to the last report.

      The lack of compliance by member States of the European Union with the agreements for stepping up the number of refugees taken by each of the countries, the increase in the number of humanitarian visas and admissions, and the unilateral closure of borders in breach of the Schengen treaty have generated an enormous humanitarian crisis in Europe. It is a European crisis and a crisis of European institutions that, regrettably, is being paid for by the refugees. We have turned the Mediterranean into the most deadly route in the world for refugees.

      There has been an agreement between the European Union and Turkey. The legality is clear on paper but, in practice, it is not so clear. Humanitarian organisations and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have left certain refugee camps, which have effectively become detention camps as a result. Rights are not properly guaranteed, and there is no guarantee that the people going back to Turkey will be able to put forward applications for asylum as established in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. For example, today Moria is a detention camp, and old people, women and children live there. According to UNICEF, 40% of the refugees are children and 10% are unaccompanied minors. What are we going to do with them? Are we going to send them back or, as Europol has said, are we just going to allow 10 000 children to go missing on European territory?

      Refugees are not the responsibility of the neighbouring countries. They are an international responsibility under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its protocol. The European Union and its member States must shoulder their responsibilities as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are doing. I sincerely feel that the signing of the treaty between the European Union and Turkey does only one thing; it seeks to ensure that the European Union and its member States flee and shirk their responsibility. This treaty is not the best way. The best way is to rectify things and to take these people in because we have international humanitarian obligations towards them.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Rodríguez Ramos. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. The texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      I call Ms Strik. You have 13 minutes.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Thank you all for your contributions, which have shown that parliamentarians from all different member States of the Council of Europe care about the fate of refugees. That is very encouraging.

      Of course, there are different views on how to guarantee protection for refugees and how to give them the prospect of a new future, but there is a common understanding that our own standards and values should be the leading principles. Mr Schwabe rightly pointed that those values are also Christian values, as Pope Francis clearly shows. What are the core values? Concerning refugees, everyone should receive protection if it is not safe for them in their country. That protection does not only mean that refugees are not sent back, which is, of course, a very crucial protection, but that they really have the chance to build a new life – to integrate and participate. It is logical that three countries cannot offer that to 4 million refugees.

      Turkey makes strong efforts to offer refugees a decent life, and their access to the labour market has improved. However, as we heard from colleagues, there are a lot of practical hurdles and quotas, meaning that only a small number of refugees benefit. Offering sufficient protection and rights is only feasible if we share the responsibility for refugees. Our capacity and how many refugees we can protect is always a subjective question. Mr Schwabe rightly stated that, taking into consideration the size of our population, we could receive many more refugees. There are 500 million people in European Union. If we want to, we could do that.

      The neighbouring countries have no choice. They are just hosting the people who enter their country. We need political will to organise legal and safe ways for refugees to enter. As long as political will is lacking, refugees will take risks, people will drown, and unaccompanied minors and women will be vulnerable to exploitation. Many members pointed to the vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and I share those concerns. Our colleague, Mr Di Stefano, will deal with that issue in a separate report. If we do not give refugees legal ways of entry, and if asylum seekers arrive spontaneously at our borders, we have the international obligation to assess their asylum claims on an individual basis.

      Mr Vareikis criticised me for mixing up refugees and migrants in my report on the western Balkans. I contest that. In paragraph 9, I acknowledge the right to border controls. That is necessary to guarantee our security. However, if a migrant enters the border and asks for asylum, we must give them access to proper asylum procedure. I made that clear in paragraph 9. It is not about giving everybody entrance but giving entrance to those under asylum procedure. That brings me to the Greek situation, where the fast-track asylum procedures are extremely vulnerable to mistakes. We need to ensure that the procedures comply with our standards and end deplorable detention circumstances. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment just finished a visit to the hotspots, which is a clear recognition that the hotspots have transformed into detention centres.

      On the principle of the agreement between Turkey and the European Union, it is wrong to seal the borders of the European Union and to shift the responsibility to other countries. Mr Küçükcan said that, since the agreement, no lives have been lost, but we have yet to see what will happen in the near future when the routes change. There is already an increase in the number of people departing from Libya and taking a much longer route via the Mediterranean Sea. We have seen the consequences of that in recent years. If we look to alternatives, we should ensure that they are sustainable and safe. Ms Yaşar pleaded for the creation of protected areas in Syria. Well, we saw only recently how insecure that is, as attacks by Daesh injured refugees and made them flee again.

      The only solution is a sustainable one and we will only find it if we take a common approach and make a strong commitment in line with human rights and in solidarity with all other countries and with the refugees.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Strik. I give the floor to Ms Groth. You have three minutes.

      Ms GROTH (Germany)* – I am going to speak German for a change because that is, of course, my mother tongue. There has been a misunderstanding. The neighbouring countries of Jordan and Lebanon currently face economic collapse. They cannot take on any more refugees. It is a resource-related issue. We need to do what we can to ensure that the humanitarian aid associations are provided with the resources to help the people who are on the front line. That is our task and that is what we have to do.

      We are always emphasising how important it is to clamp down on people smugglers and traffickers. This is a business that brings in billions of dollars. We need to ask ourselves why so little has been done to combat this phenomenon. I myself saw a smuggler’s boat go out at the beginning of March. We are being told that no people are dying. Well, they are dying elsewhere. In the Mediterranean last week, 400 people died on a boat going from Greece to Lampedusa. If we do not create legal access for refugees fleeing war and terror, we will be sending boats further out into perilous routes, with disastrous consequences.

      On family reunion, family members should be allowed to reunite. Some 17 000 refugees are on the border of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Hundreds and thousands of women and children whose husbands or fathers are in Germany or in other European countries cannot go any further. They are stuck where they are. They can only make an application for family reunion through Skype. In Thessaloniki, this is carried out for only three hours a week. Families are entitled to family reunion only when they inform the authorities via Skype to arrange a meeting or interview. The process is just not working at all and we need to seek other options. These are children who have experienced trauma as refugees. All of a sudden they are being told that they cannot go any further and that they are stuck. That is a crime.

      We are told that large numbers of children, women and men are being held in prison in Turkey. In fact, this is the case in both Greece and Turkey. In Turkey, there are so-called “removal detention centres”. My fear is that people who are deported from Greece – Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Afghan nationals – will suddenly end up in these removal detention centres. The conditions are horrific and inhumane, but almost no humanitarian organisations are able to go there – and no one from UNHCR. It is critically important that a delegation is sent out to look at the situation with their own eyes. Children and women should not be in prison. They do not belong there. We need to do what we can to enable legal access for them and for human rights to be fully respected.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Does Ms Gafarova, the Chairperson of the Migration Committee, wish to respond?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – On behalf of our committee, I would like to express our satisfaction at the fact that this debate has been taking place in the Chamber today. I will not add anything to the debate, so as to leave as much time as possible for discussion and voting.

      I thank our two rapporteurs, Ms Strik and Ms Groth, who have worked very hard on the two scheduled reports. Ms Strik went on to prepare another report under the urgent procedure. The members of the committee support the rapporteurs at every stage, and discussions have been intense and constructive.

      Dear colleagues, the Migration Committee’s report and the text adopted by the Assembly serve as a useful tool and reference, but the situation is constantly evolving. We are therefore very pleased with the Bureau’s decision, following our proposal, for an ad hoc committee to make a fact-finding visit to Greece. If the Bureau gives its final approval on Friday, a report on the situation in Greece will be prepared by Ms Strik using the information gathered during the visit. To retain its full relevance, I hope the report will be debated during our June part-session. In allowing the committee to give the crisis uninterrupted attention in this way, we will be able to follow developments as they happen. This will allow us to develop a relevant position and to express the Assembly’s viewpoint in our national and international forums.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The debate is closed. We move on to the first report, Document 14014, “A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis”.

      The Migration Committee has presented a draft resolution, Document 14014, to which nine amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

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

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – About 20 000 refugees from Syria found shelter in Armenia. By proportion of total population, Armenia is the European country receiving the third-highest number of refugees from Syria. It would therefore be necessary to add this information in the text of the draft resolution for the sake of including the information.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – This is just an addendum to the information given in paragraph 2 on the population of Jordan and Lebanon. Information is missing relating to the population of Turkey.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – This amendment is a technical addendum relating to figures in refugee recipient countries. This is about absolute value, rather than value per capita.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT* – I understand that Amendments 4, 5 and 6 are to be withdrawn. Is that the case?

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – We withdraw the amendments because of compatibility with Amendment 1.

      Ms GROTH (Germany) – Family reunification procedures for refugees should be improved and accelerated. The issuing of visas for family members with either children or parents in European countries should be quick and procedurally streamlined, applying a broad definition of the family.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 8. I call Ms Groth to support the amendment.

      Ms GROTH (Germany) – I refer the Assembly to the text of the amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14014, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The Migration Committee has presented a draft resolution, Document 14013, to which five amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

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

      We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Köck to support the amendment.

      Mr KÖCK (Austria)* – A great deal has been said today about what we should be doing in Europe. In Austria we have 100 000 refugees and a further 35 000 to be taken in. A number of countries have mentioned quotas in respect of the western Balkans. The same thing has happened in the United Kingdom; a colleague mentioned 20,000 refugees and significant figures over the next three years. Austria cannot be the only one here.

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

I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Paragraph 3 of the draft resolution is a description of the factors in why Western Balkan countries close their borders. It is simply describing what happened in northern States which meant southern States started to close their borders; it is nothing more.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Csenger-Zalán to support the amendment.

      Mr CSENGER-ZALÁN (Hungary) – Unfortunately the rapporteur did not visit Hungary, so paragraph 5 of the draft resolution is based on expired information originating from earlier reports or newspaper articles. Therefore we propose to replace paragraph 5 with a new, updated version that is in harmony with the new European Union policy.

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

I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment would completely change the content of paragraph 5, which expresses concerns about the situation in Hungary and the consequences of the erection of fences last year. I base my concerns on the Human Rights Commissioner’s third party intervention for the European Court of Human Rights. I refer also to the national judges, who have prohibited transfers to Hungary on the basis of the Dublin provisions because of the risk of violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Köck to support the amendment.

      Mr KÖCK (Austria)* – The paragraph in question refers to individual countries where it says measures should be taken. We feel that this text is contradictory. We need to identify the countries where the root causes are, and to replace the existing text with a more general wording.

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

I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The proposal is to delete all mention of the countries referred to. I do not call Austria a western Balkan country. The paragraph mentions certain Balkan countries, as well as Greece and Austria. It is about all the countries through which the refugees travelled after choosing to take their route via the Balkan countries. We urge solidarity and a common approach; these countries should all co-operate. It is good to mention the countries that are affected and that I am calling upon.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

       We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Köck to support the amendment.

      Mr KÖCK (Austria)* – The amendment would delete paragraph 9.2, because what it describes does not exist.

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

      I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I insist that we do not delete this paragraph. It is a core obligation of member States to assist every asylum application on an individual basis. We should therefore refrain from dealing with an asylum claim only on the basis of someone’s nationality, because we never know before assessing a claim if a country is safe for a specific person.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5. I call Mr Köck to support the amendment.

      Mr KÖCK (Austria)* – This amendment calls for paragraph 9.7 to be deleted. The rapporteur herself told us that border controls are important, as did the Spanish Foreign Minister earlier. Those controls enable us to identify who is coming from a safer land and who is not, and therefore who requires asylum.

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

      I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This paragraph does not reject the need for border controls or policies. It says that the countries should not unilaterally decide to suddenly close their borders. That is what was happening in the Western Balkan countries, and it disproportionately affected other countries. I call for co-operation between member States on border controls, and nothing more.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14013, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We now come to the third report, which is on the situation of refugees and migrants under the European Union-Turkey agreement of 18 March 2016, contained in Document 14028. The Migration Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which two amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

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

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Kandemir to support the amendment.

      Mr KANDEMIR (Turkey) – Turkey has maintained an open-door policy for Syrians without any form of discrimination since 2011 and strictly complies with the principle of non-refoulement. There is no change in that policy. The bye-law passed in January 2016 allowing Syrians under temporary protection to have access to the labour market is the latest example of that approach. Turkey remains committed to her obligations under international law. Paragraph 2.4 is therefore not necessary.

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

      I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – “First country of asylum” is an European Union legal term defined in the asylum procedures directive. It has not been used that often until now. The definition is quite a complicated one, and we still do not know how to interpret it. These returns may therefore be contrary to European Union and international law, as Turkey may not ensure sufficient protection. Later on in the report, I propose that we ask the European Court of Justice to explain. The paragraph poses a question about the applicability to the Turkish situation.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Kandemir to support the amendment.

      Mr KANDEMIR (Turkey) – Under Turkey’s 2013 law on foreigners and international protection, which alludes to the 1951 convention, Syrian refugees can benefit from temporary protection, including protection against refoulement. There is therefore no need to mention the convention.

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

      I call Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This is about the legal definition in the procedures directive of a “safe third country”. The criteria laid out in the provision are that asylum seekers have to be able to request asylum, receive refugee status and get all their rights in accordance with the refugee convention. That is simply not technically possible in Turkey; because of geographical limitations, people cannot get refugee status or a refugee passport. The paragraph does not talk about material rights. I recognise that Turkey makes a lot of extra efforts, but that simply cannot be in compliance with this specific legal definition.

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

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14028, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      I remind members that we have a further debate on intellectual property rights in the digital era, and that the sitting is not closed.

      I call Mr Shahgeldyan on a point of order.

      Mr SHAHGELDYAN (Armenia)* – I wanted to point out that, in the last vote, I made a mistake. I wished to vote against.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We take note of that.

      5. Intellectual property rights in the digital era

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item is the presentation of, and debate upon, the report of Mr Axel Fischer, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, on intellectual property rights in the digital era, in Document 14009. I remind members that on Monday morning, the Assembly agreed to limit speaking time to three minutes, and that we are to finish the consideration of the text, including the vote, by 8.30 p.m., so we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at around 8.20 p.m. to allow time for replies from the committee and votes.

      Mr Fischer has 13 minutes in total, which he can divide as he sees fit between the presentation of the report and his reply to the debate.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – The right to property is not only a fundamental right enshrined in all constitutions of the member States of the Council of Europe; it is a human right, protected through Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. That protection covers the right to intellectual property, which comprises both copyright and patent law. It is therefore very important that the Council of Europe and our Assembly monitors closely the most recent discussions and legislative changes that occur at both European and international level.

      In its very first meeting in 1949, our Parliamentary Assembly endorsed a report submitted by the French parliamentarian, Mr Longchambon, on the creation of a European patent protection system. The report that I am submitting today attempts, through resolutions and recommendations to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers, to create political awareness of this subject.

      A great deal has been changed by the Internet. Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights calls on member States to carry out the positive and active protection of intellectual property. It is not enough for member States to say that they carry out no violation of intellectual property through expropriation; our governments should provide effective protection from similar incursions carried out by private citizens.

      That commitment applies to the European Union, because Article 17 of its Charter of Fundamental Rights explicitly mentions the protection of intellectual property. The bodies of the European Union are therefore legally bound to comply with that fundamental right. At the level of the United Nations, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights covers that. It was therefore wrong of the Pakistani special rapporteur of the United Nations to state to the General Assembly in 2015 that the right to intellectual property is not a human right.

Intellectual property rights are a key foundation for the cultural diversity and the commercial and economic strength of Europe in the 21st century. The copyright business represents €509 billion per year within the European Union. For a large number of European countries, the intellectual potential of scientists is their most important natural resource.

      Culture – literature, music and film – needs to exist on a commercial basis. Copyright creates that economic foundation and promotes diversity and creativity, which we appreciate greatly in Europe. For quite some years, the Internet has become the most important medium for pirating and disseminating cultural works. You may be aware of the German-Finnish Internet entrepreneur Kim Schmitz, who is also known as Kim Dotcom. Through a free website, he pirated works and passed them on. Since 2012, he has been the subject of a court case in New Zealand. In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg decided that the criminal prosecution in the Swedish courts of the founder of the Pirate Bay website was in compliance with human rights.

      Tobias McFadden found in a court case against Sony Music Entertainment in Germany that people offering free wi-fi networks in shops, restaurants or hotels could not be held responsible for user copyright violations. That was found by the general prosecutor of the European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The owner of such businesses can, however, be forced by a court order to put an end to or prevent such violations.

      Google currently receives 22 million requests per week for search results to be deleted. That significant number has more than doubled since 2015. More than 4 million requests were received in the last month alone from the British recorded music industry, and co-operation between Google and copyright holders seems to be working very well indeed. I thank Google for being transparent as far as the protection of copyright is concerned. Facebook, too, is taking intellectual property rights and protection very seriously and is offering all users the possibility of launching a complaint if they feel that their rights have been violated. Those procedures are based on the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which applies to Google and Facebook.

      It is important that Europe pulls in the same direction and creates a clear regulatory foundation to ensure that the Internet does not undermine intellectual property in Europe and that the commercial worth of Europe’s creative industries does not come under threat. It is not in the interests of our member States to enable the burgeoning industry for pirated copies of European products to continue.

      I am not convinced by the arguments that Internet users have the advantage of being able to download cheaper pirated copies. We must use all the technical possibilities that we have to make commercial use of Internet content.

      In Germany, there is the online reporting portal, the company known as WORT, which can be used to register copyright, provided it has a minimum of 1 800 characters. Through that, authors can receive compensation if copies of their work are used.

      Copyright can be granted in different countries. Should things be different for the Internet? Since the Yahoo judgment in 2000, we know that national laws against the sale of illegal goods on the worldwide web must be respected.

      The European Commission is expected to deliver a report by the beginning of 2017 about potential competition problems in trade on the Internet. That will look at so-called geo-blocking. The European Commission seems to feel that country-specific dissemination of goods and services would pose a problem for competitiveness. A decision needs to be made about that. A survey of more than 1 400 individual businesses and service providers from the 28 European Union member States showed that geo-blocking was used daily with regard to goods and services throughout the European Union, with 38% of individual business men and 68% of service providers admitting that they used it.

      The Internet has changed and improved a great deal in our daily lives, but we must be careful that the regulatory norms are complied with on the Internet. I have no doubt that we will have an interesting discussion.

      I thank all members and the chair of the committee for their help and co-operation. I particularly thank the secretariat for the excellent co-operation. Compiling the report has been a great deal of fun and I look forward to the discussion.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Fischer. You have a little over three minutes left and you will be able to respond to speakers shortly, using that time.

      We now come to the list of speakers, and I call first Mr Schnabel.

      Mr SCHNABEL (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I congratulate Mr Fischer on the excellent and informative report on intellectual property rights in the digital era. It provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of affairs in the fast-expanding area and all-encompassing arena of Internet use.

      The report makes it clear that we are confronted with a serious erosion of intellectual property rights and even a depletion of individual creativity. The ALDE Group therefore happily accepts the resolution and recommendations that the rapporteur has presented.

      Supporting the report does not mean that we believe that the solution to the problems is within reach. The report shows how difficult it is to develop a legislative framework that will balance the diverging interest of the creative individual, the user who is hardly prepared to pay royalties for information on the Internet, and the global companies, which, as virtually monopolists, decide what information will be made available to all other parties and on what conditions.

      More international co-operation is necessary in legislating and monitoring, not only between the countries of the European Union – and, better still, the Council of Europe – but between multilateral institutions in Europe and the United States, which is the home of the current monopolists, and China, the main future competitor, which does not have an impressive record of respect for intellectual property rights. We hope that the recommendations can be made more pertinent to that issue.

      Part of the report pertains to the particular problems of journalists and media. Today, they sell less information on paper, but can hardly make up for that loss by selling information on the Internet. We underline the report’s conclusion that that should be seen as a threat to keeping democratic values alive and we believe that the recommendations should give special attention to that problem.

      The digitisation of all aspects of our daily life, though extensive, as Mr Fischer said, is still in its infancy. The report does not go into the opportunities to develop the more technical devices that could help secure property rights. There is a market for that, and the Council of Europe may want to help it develop in Europe.

      Mr NORDQVIST (Denmark, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – First, I congratulate the rapporteur on his work. The report is very good and raises some important questions, which demand that we dare to talk about something that we do not fully understand – that is what the Internet is.

      The time in which we live has created this new form of communication, meeting and sharing. It has not happened slowly and incrementally, giving us the opportunity to adjust our behaviour and our laws. It has been a revolution that has happened so fast that, every time we try to act, we are a little bit behind. That demands that we do not rush new measures through, but that we dare to take our time to understand the new challenge with which the new reality presents us. We need to meet these new technologies with an open mind. We need to be careful not to look at a new world with old glasses.

      As the report states, it is important to stress that human rights are not only for the real world but also for virtual reality. That goes for intellectual property rights and for freedom of speech. Why are the questions that the report asks so important? There are numerous reasons.

      First, an author or a creator, and even each one of us, has a right to make decisions about what we create and what we want to share. Secondly, as the report also states, that is important for our creative industries, which distribute online, and people who make their livelihoods through their creations.

We need to be sure that the huge multinational companies do not hide from paying fees for the creations that they put online.

      The report highlights the important aspect that we need to help the users because we cannot expect them to understand the complex laws of intellectual properties. It is good that the report states that we need to make things clear for the user.

      However, we need to be careful when we make new laws because the control that we can put in place must not kill what is so beautiful about the Internet: it gives everyone a chance to speak up and engage in a dialogue. The freedom of the Internet is also crucial.

      Let us keep an open mind and continue this discussion even after voting for this very good report so that we can continue to find answers to new challenges.

      Mr REISS (France, Spokesperson for the European People’s Party)* – I applaud the excellent work done by Mr Axel Fischer in allowing us to deal with this very complex issue. How can we adapt our remuneration models for the creators of intellectual property to meet the needs of the digital age? It is true that digital technology has expanded our access to culture and today the possibilities are almost unlimited. Sometimes, however, the Internet has made people think that culture can come free of charge and that is clearly not the case. If we are no longer going to pay for creativity, clearly we will stifle it and ultimately kill it.

      As the report emphasises, pressure against copyright through social networks can be very strong indeed, even going as far as intimidation in some cases. The market leader, Deezer, has more than 16 million active users, 6 million of whom are subscribers. We also know from studies that a performer can earn €100 if he has a song played 14 times on the radio, if he sells 100 albums and if he is listened to 250,000 times by paid-for streaming or 1 million times on free streaming. That is one difficulty. Another difficulty is control, because of the number of people listening and the global nature of the market. The example given in the report of public libraries illustrates the significant difference that exists between the physical world and the digital or virtual world.

      What can we do in this context? I was involved in an information mission from our National Assembly and the results of our work showed that today the copyright system is more relevant than ever, but it is undergoing a crisis that we must overcome. We must pay those who are creative but we must also make consumers aware of the importance of all this for their future. Indeed, the report emphasises this. We need to ensure respect for ownership, property and labour. Illegal use of someone else’s labour through the Internet – is that not in fact theft?

      There are those who say that perhaps we should not make so much use of online services, but I think that it is too late given the social trends we see today. We know that it is easy to get information online and you can get information and access immediately. This is not something that people are going to give up. If we look at the plight of the print media today, we see very clearly what is happening – if we needed further confirmation. Protecting intellectual property makes it possible for us to foster cultural diversity and protect the economic basis of our societies. Clearly, education is key. Technological and legal barriers alone cannot do the job for us, necessary and useful though they are.

      Rapporteur, I very much hope that the work done by the European Parliament on intellectual property will be along the lines that you are advocating, and on behalf of the EPP I thoroughly commend this report.

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the final speaker, given the time we have this evening.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I, too, thank Axel Fischer for his high-quality report on an essential issue for creativity in Europe. The summary he provides of recent and coming technological developments, as well as the questions that arise with regard to the protection of works, is valuable. However, I would like to mention some nuances – not complete disagreement; that would be going too far – regarding the assessment of geo-blocking and access on demand to television programmes.

      On demand has become a major means of accessing TV programmes at a time when one wishes to do so, and as far as possible where one wishes to do so – as far as possible, since a black screen may be displayed if an Internet user on the other side of the Rhine from Strasbourg in Kehl, for example, wishes to watch a wonderful cultural programme on French television, such as “Des racines et des ailes”. It will say on the.fr site that because the broadcasting rights do not apply beyond a certain territorial framework, access to that programme is denied; that person’s frustration will be boundless.

      Axel Fischer’s report deals almost exclusively with film production. I share his assessment that making the territorialisation of broadcasting relative could pose a threat to film production in this context. We are sufficiently committed to the promotion of cultural diversity for us to rally behind the long-term funding of the film industries, which are the treasures of our continent, but can we or should we provide the same response or indeed a refusal of cross-border on-demand broadcasting? I am thinking in particular of magazines and information and news broadcasts.

      The rapporteur points out that there is no single market here since most works are not the subject of measurable demand in other countries. However, I find this assertion rash and simplistic since it leaves to one side those people who may be keen on languages or culture who wish to access on-demand broadcasting from abroad. Hence I do not endorse his assessment that we need to reject opening the scope of the 1993 European Union satellite and cable directive to on-demand online broadcasting. The advantage of this text, which has stood the test of time, is precisely that it regulates different legal situations between rights holders and makes it possible to envisage broadcasting wider than at the national level. Opening up the scope of the directive would make it possible for channels and rights holders to have a proper framework for addressing potential or even nascent European markets for on-demand broadcasting. It would also make it possible for television channels to understand rights and obligations in a different way when they buy programmes from independent producers. European broadcasting of these programmes must be one of the international objectives of television channels, and all the more so if they are public channels. Reconciling the protection of rights holders and the wider broadcasting of online television programmes is necessary for cultural diversity.

      The PRESIDENT* – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. I remind colleagues that the texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      Mr Fischer, you now have just over three minutes to respond. You do not wish to say anything? In that case, I turn to Mr Volodymyr Ariev to respond on behalf of the committee.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Dear colleagues, it would take only 30 seconds to access pirate website content from this Chamber. Such accessibility has caused producers real problems. Items of intellectual property can involve investment of anything between thousands and millions of euros, and if they can be accessed for free, that will destroy the economic base for subsequent production of intellectual property – music and films, for example. Accessing pirate content is clearly and definitely theft. Ironically, those accessing pirate websites come across advertisements for legal goods and services.

      The most important thing is to destroy the economic basis of piracy. The issues are well reflected in Mr Fischer’s report, for which I thank him. He really pushed forward the issue of defending and protecting producers from theft. I ask all of you to support the resolution and recommendation.

      The PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Culture Committee has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14009.

      The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 14009.

      The vote is open.

6. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Daniel Mitov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions: Mr Billstrom, Ms Rodríguez Ramos, Ms Mateu, Mr Goncharenko, Ms Christodoulopoulou, Ms Blondin, Ms Günay.

3. Address by Mr José Manuel García-Margallo, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Spain

Questions: Mr Fischer, Ms Quéré, Mr Xuclà, The Earl of Dundee, Mr Kox, Mr Le Borgn’, Ms Rodríguez Ramos.

4. Joint debate: A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis

Human rights of refugees and migrants – the situation in the Western Balkans

The situation of refugees and migrants under the European Union-Turkey Agreement of 18 March 2016

Presentation by Ms Groth of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14014

Presentation by Mr Ms Strik of the reports of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Documents 14013 and 14028

Speakers: Mr Schennach, Ms Fiala, Ms Yaşar, Ms Katrivanou, Mr Vareikis, Ms Karapetyan, Ms Kyriakidou, Mr Dişli*, Mr Herkel, Baroness Massey, Mr R. Huseynov, Ms Tolhurst, Mr Schwabe, Mr Gyöngyösi,

Mr Munyama, Ms Huovinen, Mr Ariev, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Kürkçü, Mr Yatim, Mr Heer, Mr Rochebloine,

Mr Fridez, Mr Küçükcan, Ms Sutter, Mr Németh, Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir, Ms Kasimati, Mr Mesić,

Ms Pashayeva, Ms Rodríguez Ramos.

Draft resolution contained in Document 14014, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 14013, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 14028, as amended, adopted.

5. Intellectual property rights in the digital era

Presentation by Mr Mr Fischer of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 14009

Speakers: Mr Schnabel, Mr Nordqvist, Mr Reiss, Mr Le Borgn’.

Draft resolution contained in Document 14009 adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 14009 adopted.

6. 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

Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON/Eduard Köck

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ*

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Iwona ARENT

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina

Mehmet BABAOĞLU

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/ Teófilo De Luis

Meritxell BATET/ Soraya Rodríguez Ramos

Deniz BAYKAL*

Guto BEBB/Kelly Tolhurst

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Włodzimierz BERNACKI

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Jokin BILDARRATZ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Tobias BILLSTRÖM

Oleksandr BILOVOL

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

Anne BRASSEUR

Piet De BRUYN*

Margareta BUDNER

Valentina BULIGA

Dawn BUTLER

Nunzia CATALFO/Carlo Lucherini

Elena CENTEMERO

José CEPEDA

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Paolo CORSINI

David CRAUSBY

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Attila Tilki

Geraint DAVIES/Liam Byrne

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Renata DESKOSKA*

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE*

Francesc Xavier DOMENECH/Ángela Ballester

Jeffrey DONALDSON/Mike Wood

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Nicole DURANTON/André Schneider

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Franz Leonhard EẞL

Markar ESEYAN*

Nigel EVANS

Samvel FARMANYAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Bernard FOURNIER/André Reichardt

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ

Martin FRONC*

Sahiba GAFAROVA

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Xavier GARCÍA ALBIOL*

José Ramón GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ*

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Mihai GHIMPU/Alina Zotea

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Oleksii GONCHARENKO

Rainer GOPP

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU*

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT*

François GROSDIDIER*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Gergely GULYÁS/István Hollik

Emine Nur GÜNAY

Valgerður GUNNARSDÓTTIR*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Maria GUZENINA/Susanna Huovinen

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI/Killion Munyama

Hamid HAMID*

Alfred HEER

Gabriela HEINRICH

Michael HENNRICH/ Thomas Feist

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

John HOWELL

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Sandra JAKELIĆ*

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Andrzej JAWORSKI/Daniel Milewski

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Anne KALMARI/Petri Honkonen

Erkan KANDEMIR

Marietta KARAMANLI/ Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON*

Nina KASIMATI

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Filiz KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR

İlhan KESİCİ

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Aleksander Pociej

Manana KOBAKHIDZE*

Haluk KOÇ

Željko KOMŠIĆ/Saša Magazinović

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková

Elvira KOVÁCS*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Florian KRONBICHLER*

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Talip KÜÇÜKCAN

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Yuliya L OVOCHKINA*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Luís LEITE RAMOS

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER*

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

Filippo LOMBARDI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUCAIDES*

Philippe MAHOUX/Petra De Sutter

Marit MAIJ*

Muslum MAMMADOV/Vusal Huseynov

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Marek Černoch

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Duarte MARQUES

Alberto MARTINS

Meritxell MATEU/Carles Jordana

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Manuel Tornare

Michael McNAMARA/Seán Crowe

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Jasen MESIĆ

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Frédéric Reiss

Marianne MIKKO

Anouchka van MILTENBURG*

Orhan MİROĞLU

Olivia MITCHELL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Thomas MÜLLER/Roland Rino Büchel

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Marian NEACȘU*

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Johan NISSINEN/ Markus Wiechel

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Suat ÖNAL

Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN

Joseph O’REILLY/Rónán Mullen

Tom PACKALÉN

Judith PALLARÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Jaana PELKONEN/Olli-Poika Parviainen

Agnieszka POMASKA

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/ Baroness Doreen Massey

Mark PRITCHARD*

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Kerstin RADOMSKI*

Mailis REPS/Andres Herkel

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Melisa RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ

Helena ROSETA/Paulo Pisco

René ROUQUET

Alex SALMOND*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO*

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Paul SCHNABEL

Ingjerd SCHOU

Koos SCHOUWENAAR*

Nico SCHRIJVER

Frank SCHWABE

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Aleksandar SENIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Paula SHERRIFF

Bernd SIEBERT*

Adão SILVA*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Egidijus Vareikis

Jan ŠKOBERNE*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Dominik TARCZYŃSKI*

Damien THIÉRY

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI

Goran TUPONJA/Snežana Jonica

İbrahim Mustafa TURHAN/Burhanettin Uysal

Nada TURINA-ĐURIĆ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Leyla Şahin USTA

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist

Vladimir VORONIN/Liliana Palihovici

Viktor VOVK

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN

Katrin WERNER

Jacek WILK*

Andrzej WOJTYŁA

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Serap YAŞAR

Leonid YEMETS*

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Naira Karapetyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Hans Fredrik GRØVAN

Anne LOUHELAINEN

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Meritxell MATEU

Jaana PELKONEN

Observers

Percy DOWNE

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Armando LUNA CANALES

Ulises RAMÍREZ NÚÑEZ

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Mohammed AMEUR

M. Hassan ARIF

M. El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

Omar HEJIRA

Qais KHADER

M. Abdesselam LEBBAR

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM